DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Do you think it's the job of the journalist to point out to that person if that person is contradicting themselves? That is what you're saying.
Last edited:
Chris Mohr's YouTube Part 23 Epilogue: WTC Dust Update; Saying Goodbye to 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
Do you think it's the job of the journalist to point out to that person if that person is contradicting themselves? That is what you're saying.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
By the way, Ziggi ran away from some questions in July - my post #318 was at least the third time I asked them.
Here they are again:
Now there are some open question regarding the meat and substance of the research done by Farrer, Jones, Millette, Basile and others, that you so far have ignored. I suspect you like to pretend those questions don't exist because they are extremely inconvenient to you. Anyway, here they are:
Please acknowledge that
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
Again, please make sure you give separate ansers to these separate questions!
Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes "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!18
I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
(Some of the questions overlap; for example 13 and 19)
Here they are again:
Now there are some open question regarding the meat and substance of the research done by Farrer, Jones, Millette, Basile and others, that you so far have ignored. I suspect you like to pretend those questions don't exist because they are extremely inconvenient to you. Anyway, here they are:
Please acknowledge that
- there is no evidence for platelets in the MEK-chip1
- there is no evidence for Al associated with Si in the MEK-chip prior to soaking in MEK2
- there is however evidence that Al and Si are not associated after MEK-soaking3
- the evidence is entirely consistent with Al and Si never habing been associated with each other in the first place in the MEK chip4
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
- 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)
- Do you agree that those are necessary and sufficient criteria to tell primer paint chips from "nanothermite" chips?12
- Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to chips a-d?13
- Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to the MEK-chip?14
Again, please make sure you give separate ansers to these separate questions!
Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes "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!18
I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
- Did Harrit et al ignite chips a-d? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!19
- Did Harrit et al ignite the MEK-chip? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!20
(Some of the questions overlap; for example 13 and 19)
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
As I documented two days ago in my post #1233, Criteria is still on the run from answering questions about statements he has made here - questions he is duty-bound to address ASAP according to a code of ethics he demands others to adhere to.
BenjaminTR in post #1188 and myself in post #1193 asked those questions - I'll repeat Benjamin's here, for he was briefer:
First:
This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.
Second:
Third:
This assumption is false, as the data sheet (http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.
Fourth:
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.
Fifth:
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.
Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.
It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.
BenjaminTR in post #1188 and myself in post #1193 asked those questions - I'll repeat Benjamin's here, for he was briefer:
Based on Harrit's paper "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT" and its sources, I conclude that every item on Oystein's list is correct. Here's why.Criteria said:
First:
In "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT," Harrit only mentions one primer paint: Tnemec red. Figures 3 and 4 give information about its composition. Harrit does not name or list a single property of any other paint. All of his arguments refer to the properties of Tnemec red. Either his argument is fallacious, or he is assuming Tnemec red is the only primer paint that could have been present.Oystein said:
This assumption is false, not just because there could have been paint from other sources, but also because we know a LaClede primer paint was also use in WTC.
Second:
Harrit's paper is about whether "the red/gray chips" are paint. We can take "the red/gray chips" to mean "the red/gray chips studied in the Bentham paper." Addressing this assumption then requires analysis of the Bentham paper, which others in this thread and related threads have already done. For now, I will simply refer back to their arguments about this assumption and its falsity.Oystein said:
Third:
Harrit says (page 3), "Even though the composition of the Tnemec pigment is proprietary, the content of this component can be obtained from the Material Safety Data Sheet, from which the pertinent information is reproduced in Figure 4." (emphasis added) He explicitly states that the data sheet gives the composition of the proprietary pigment. I don't see another way to interpret this.Oystein said:
This assumption is false, as the data sheet (http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf) is for Tnemec Primer Red, not pigment.
Fourth:
In Table 1, there is a column labeled "Composition in wet paint." The value given for zinc chromate is 20.3%, which is the value for zinc chromate given in Sramek 1967. Thus, Harrit treats Sramek 1967 as if the wet paint mass is 100%.Oystein said:
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Zinc chromate is this 20.3% of the pigment alone, not of the wet paint.
Fifth:
On page 3 Harrit says, "After application, the paint was baked at 120 °C. In this process all volatile ingredients evaporate. Thinners (Figure 3) and mineral spirits (from the Tnemec pigment) amount to (32.3 + 7.6) ~ 40 %. If we subtract these from the composition percentages given above, we get a rough estimate of the composition of the hardened paint." (emphasis added) The value of 32.3% for thinners is taken from Sramek 1967. In order for subtracting this (along with the extra assumed pigment spirits) from 100% to give the hardened composition, we must assume Sramek 1967 treats wet paint mass as 100%.Oystein said:
This assumption is false. In Figure 3, the pigment and vehicle sections each individually sum to 100%. Thinners are 32.3% of the vehicle alone, not of the wet paint.
Sixth: The conclusion follows from the above. Harrit overestimates how much of each pigment is present in the wet paint, and he overestimates how much of the wet paint mass evaporates away. These errors combine to produce an even greater overestimation of how much of each pigment is in the dry paint.
It is easy to verify each of these (especially the fourth and fifth, which alone justify Oystein's conclusion); it does not require specialist knowledge of chemistry.
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
Let me explain since you seem utterly confused Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Mohr, in his published video, quoted Dr. Farrer in such a way as to unmistakably create the message that Dr. Farrer believed that Dr. Millette tested 9/11 WTC dust red chips which were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Since we know that the test methods followed by Dr. Millette were a legitimate means of substance identification, it logically follows that if his selected chips matched those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, than Dr. Millette’s substance identification findings should have agreed with the 2009 Bentham paper findings.
As we know, they clearly did not.
Therefore, if Dr. Farrer truly believed that Dr. Millette’s red chips were identical to those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, he was placing himself in the position of having to agree with the findings of both studies.
Of course Mr. Thomas, if you believe that Dr. Millette’s test protocols were performed in a shoddy manner, than I retract my argument. If Dr. Millette obtained bogus test results on chips that indeed matched those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, than the message in Mr. Mohr’s video that Dr. Farrer believed the chips were a match would stand without a contradiction.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What separation criterion did Dr Millette not follow? Please quote from the Harrit paper separation criterion.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
Can you direct me to the spot in Mr. Mohr’s published video where Dr. Farrer "appear" to be in agreement with Dr. Millette’s findings? Please quote the relevant statements attributed to Farrer in full!
Regardless of truth value of your previous claim. why can both not be true? Do you claim humans are incapable of expressing two contradictory beliefs?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I would let the story run because it would make it clear that Mr. X was an incompetent fool who didn't know what he was talking about. You, clearly, would prefer that the public didn't know important details like this about their public servants. You'd make a great Trump supporter.
Dave
Let me put it this way.
Steven Jones stands by the conclusions on his ATM paper.
However, he has said:
I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.
That result clearly contradicts the conclusions of the ATM paper which Prof. Jones mantains.
You seem to be implying that reporting on that statement makes the journalist disohnest.
And that implication is nonsense.
Or, Farrer is a bit of an idiot and isn't really thinking hard enough about the whole business and is blathering seemingly contradictory statements.
If you're still here - how could a paint-thin layer of thermitic material damage WTC steel?
911 truth remains at the big zero for evidence of thermite.
No damage to WTC steel on 911 from thermite. Just a reminder of what you can't discuss with the delusional fantasy of thermite, CD, and the Inside Job paranoid conspiracy theory.
How does tons of Harrit's thermite work and not damage WTC steel, and not leave tons of iron? Magic?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That's the really amusing bit.
Suppose we have a 100 micron layer of some material that releases 7.5kJ/g, by whatever mechanism and at whatever temperature. We know it's a composite of inorganic material in an organic binder, and the most similar material we know of is paint; so let's assume it has a density similar to that of paint - say, 1.5kg/m3. Steel has a density of around 7.5-8kg/m3, and a heat capacity of about 0.5J/gK, and the columns of the WTC were made up from sections from 5" down; let's say about 2" in the collapse initiation zone, or 50mm if you're not American. Now, our coating of 100 microns is 500 times thinner than the steel it's painted on to, and about a fifth as dense, so for every gram of coating we have 2500 grams of steel. If all our 7.5kJ/g is transferred into the steel, that gives us 7500/2500=3J for every gram of steel, enough to raise its temperature about 6 degrees (Centigrade, not Fahrenheit).
What does this tell us? It tells us, without possibility of error, that the material Harrit and co-workers found had no direct influence on the collapse of the WTC. That's why they have to invoke the theory that it was some kind of fuse to set off explosives; that, in itself, is a pointless function, because there are simple ways to set off explosives that don't require chips of precision engineered nanocomposites (or "paint", as sane people call them).
The red chips are an equally red herring, as anyone with basic physics understanding and a calculator can tell instantly.
Dave
I think Criteria and Ziggi are saying something even less reasonable. Farrer's claims as reported are consistent. It is perfectly consistent for someone to have the right chips but get the wrong results. No contradiction there whatsoever.
It appears, then, that they are claiming it is unethical to report about someone making an argument that (according to them) is not the best one to make in the circumstances. Since Milette's results are inconsistent with thermite, Ziggi and Criteria think the best way to support the thermite hypothesis is to deny Milette had the right chips. Yet Farrer didn't say that. Apparently it is unethical to report on someone on "their side" disagreeing with them.
Reading comprehension skills are banned when you join 911 truth's celebration of ignorance. Evidence is strictly prohibited.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Pure, unadulterated, and unwarranted ad hominem.
Farrer said Millette's chips looked just like the ones he studied with Harrit. Farrer really said that, it was not a misrepresentation on Chris's part.
The highlighted portions are obvious, clear, unmistakable supposition and inference on your part. Mohr never said Farrer agreed with Millette's conclusions, and no amount of tortured parsing of words on your part will ever establish that. Simple.
My statement above stands unrefuted.
Now that that's finally settled, you've got a pile of other questions pending your attention. My prediction: you will continue to avoid all of these, typical truther modus operandi.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Ok, let's assume the conclusion of the Harrit paper are correct. The red layer of the red/gray chips is thermite. Therefore a layer of thermite was on the structural members of the WTC buildings. Let's further assume it was ignited and most of it burned
Put forth an arguement by which this caused the buildings to collapse.
Put forth an arguement by which this caused the buildings to collapse.
No, at most Dr. Farrer said the chips looked the same on FIRST READ. Rev. Mohr neglected to mention that Dr. Jones posted a letter on 911blogger in collaboration with Dr. Farrer about 6 months after the release of Millette´s preliminary report - not upon first read! This letter lists several reasons to think the chips were in fact not the same. You know this already Dave. Is Rev. Mohr´s bad memory contagious?
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Makes very little differences in the scheme and scope of the discussion, here is where Jones
Got the Idea to test for nano thermites before Harrit and Farrer were ever involved!
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf
Notice that it refers to altering the reaction rate by slowing down the reaction with SI.
Nano thermites are still useless against steel, and still would not make effective electric
matches in the form as described in the Harrit paper, so the have only one logical purpose.
That purpose is solely to make Truthers look dumb.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
This is FALSE, Ziggi! The only thing that Farrer qualified as looking something "at first read" is some "it" that "looks very well done":
I presume this "At first look, it looks very well done" is an assessment of the entire Millette study.
There is no indication that the "at first look" qualifier also applies to any of the assessments that follow, nor that Farrer later revised his initial assessment of the study as such.
We all know this, Ziggi. Why don't you provide a link?
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses
So we can all verify that Jones in that letter did not address the points that made Farrer state his and Millette's chips look alike:
- "The chips ... look identical in appearance"
- "The chips ... look identical in ... their chemical profile"
- "The particles they refer to as kaolin and Iron oxide are identical in appearance to the TEM and SEM images that I had acquired of the particles."
- "They [the particles!] also have the same chemical profile (XEDS)"
Steven Jones: "Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .
The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio. "
But lo and behold: A day after Jones had published this, Jeff Farrer sent him a correction:The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio. "
Steven Jones: "5. With regard to the 0.92 ratio, Jeff notes that he did not use standards for the TEM/XEDS analysis so this ratio could be consistent with unity."
So actually even Dr. Jones now had to admit that Farrer's TEM-XEDS of the kaolin platelets is consistent with kaolin and, by inference, with Millette's results.Thanks, Ziggi, for alerting us to yet another source of agreement by Jeff Farrer!
But that is literally and actually what Farrer DID write! Farrer found that Al and Si were present in close to 1:1 proportions in the platelets - that is therefore not elemental Al. Did Farrer ever say that he found elemental Al in his TEM work? Of course not! You'd have jumped on this long ago!
Look what Farrer wrote, verbatim:
So, "Rev. Mohr made it look like as if Dr. Farrer confessed to him that ... his co-author accused him in turn of testing the wrong chip" because that is exactly what Dr. Farrer wrote!
Can you please point us to the min:sec in the video, and quote the relevant statements, where "Rev. Mohr made it look like as if Dr. Farrer confessed to him that ... he then conspired with his co-authors to keep this data out of the 2009 paper"? Because I couldn't find that in a brief (several minutes) search in the video. Thanks.
First alleged claim: Nonsense! Nothing in any of the words Farrer said about Millette's study can be construed as him agreeing with the conclusion! The quote does not speak of Millette at all; in fact it can't as it is about events prior to April 2009! It is however quite obviously true that Farrer's TEM work did not find any elemental Al, or else it would have been the #1 most important experimental result of all and been paraded by all of you for years now.
Second alleged claim: Chris Mohr merely gives you the facts - if YOU conclude from these facts "that Farrer took part in scientific misconduct", then that's what you conclude. If you don't conclude this, then surely you can provide reasons for not concluding this - why don't you? (Personally, I don't think this is a matter of misconduct. I don't know when the TEM work was done; conceivably, it came too late, even if it was done in 2008, to be included, and also conceivably, the authors might have intended to include this, as well as the FTIR data, in a follow-up paper. Which never came. The proble, IMO, is not so much that the data wasn't used for the 2009 paper, but that it is still being withheld in 2015)
You know what? I tend to believe you!
But how exactly do you know this? Got any quotes to show?
And how would Criteria know?
a) Can you please point me to the min:sec where "Rev. Mohr alleges" that "that particular TEM analysis along with later XRD analysis did not agree with Millette´s conclusion"? Because I could not find it!
I agree that Jones's word sound as if the XRD was a complete dud, which isn't much surprising given the extremely small samples.
b) But we know that Farrer got some rather specific results from his TEM-work - images that look practically identical to Millette's, XEDS results showing several interesting elements, etc.
c) Science ethics demands that all experimental results be published, including negative and inconclusive results ("duds").
Again, I didn't see a fraud charge. If that is what you read, it reveals a bit about what you think. Nothing more.
I have a problem here.
You speak of a 2008 TEM analysis.
You speak of a 2009 TEM analysis.
How can you? None exists! Nothing has been published except some verbal stuff in a couple of emails!
It's possible that Chris Mohr has conflated remarks about different TEM tests. It's also possible that he hasn't! How would YOU know, Ziggi? Are you privy to Farrer's email correspondence? Or Mohr's, or Jones's? Has Farrer shown you his TEM results?
Please reveal your sources!
I can copy and paste a few questions that you, Ziggi, have been running away from for almost six months, and a few more that Criteria is currently running away from. You have some nerve...
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
No takers?
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Here is the closest list of criterion that he has put forth.
An excerpt of one of your quotes.
Based on your above quote which of the remaining tests, after the 4 you mentioned above, can one forego after becoming sufficiently familiar with candidate chips?
1. Optical microscopy
2. SEM
3. XEDS
4. Separation of components using MEK
5. DSC
6. The residue after ignition in the DSC test has iron microspheres
"This is what the new investigation will have to establish" is the usual last resort at times like this. The always-open exit door that allows proponents of moronic arguments to save a little dignity. "The new investigation" is a bit like the weirdo god who "moves in mysterious ways".
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The Yosemite Sam argument: "I don't know how ya's done it, but I knows ya done it."
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Number Five on Criteria's list disqualified, Harrit and Jones, no inert gas environment,
and no environment to test residues for Aluminothermic byproducts, Aluminum oxides, disqualified all the results of Harrit's and Jones's fiction!
Would suggest that Criteria and Ziggi hire a professional nano chemist with appropriate
equipment to do credible testing.
We all know that will never happen, they don't want truth, they just want the dimwitted circular arguments!
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
BLACK does not equal WHITE
As you well know Mr. Thomas, it would be a violation of the Membership Agreement for me to direct “pure, unadulterated, and unwarranted ad hominems” at you, warranted or otherwise.
So please understand. I totally disagree with your characterization of my remark.
Since your previous remarks indicated an almost complete lack of understanding of what I tried to say, I attributed that lack of understanding to some confusion on your part.
I did not say otherwise about Dr. Farrer’s quote.
The important issue here is. Is that literally what Dr. Farrer meant, or did Mr. Mohr intentionally use Dr. Farrer’s words against him?
Let me explain again and hopefully you will feel the words have been less “tortured”.
LET A = Millette’s Red Chips
LET B = 2009 Bentham paper highlighted Red Chips
IF A = B
AND
IF A is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal PRIMER PAINT
THEREFORE IT STANDS TO REASON THAT
B must also equal PRIMER PAINT
IF B is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal NANO-THERMITE
THAN A cannot equal B
Mr. Mohr has published a video that argues for a certain set of beliefs.
One of those beliefs is that Dr. Millette studied the 9/11 WTC red dust chips that were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper. A = B.
In support of this belief, Mr. Mohr uses a quote from one of the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Farrer.
Unexpanded and with no further context provided, Dr. Farrer’s quote ‘literally’ agrees with Mr. Mohr’s argument that Dr. Millette studied 9/11 WTC red dust chips that were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper. A = B.
Hence Mr. Mohr is asserting;
IF A = B
AND
IF A is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal PRIMER PAINT
THEREFORE IT STANDS TO REASON THAT
B must also equal PRIMER PAINT.
If, as Mr. Mohr clearly “inferred”, that Dr. Farrer believed A = B, Dr. Farrer in effect was providing agreement B must also equal PRIMER PAINT. A belief that was clearly in line with the one held and promoted by Mr. Mohr.
In the same published video, Mr. Mohr also states that Dr. Farrer stands firmly behind his finding that;
B was foolproof tested properly and shown to equal NANO-THERMITE.
PRIMER PAINT A, is not a substance match for NANO-THERMITE B.
Therefore, Mr. Mohr is now stating that Dr. Farrer’s findings are in total contradiction with the assertion that he believes A (Millette’s Red Chips) = B (2009 Bentham paper highlighted Red Chips).
As you well know Mr. Thomas, it would be a violation of the Membership Agreement for me to direct “pure, unadulterated, and unwarranted ad hominems” at you, warranted or otherwise.
So please understand. I totally disagree with your characterization of my remark.
Since your previous remarks indicated an almost complete lack of understanding of what I tried to say, I attributed that lack of understanding to some confusion on your part.
I did not say otherwise about Dr. Farrer’s quote.
The important issue here is. Is that literally what Dr. Farrer meant, or did Mr. Mohr intentionally use Dr. Farrer’s words against him?
Let me explain again and hopefully you will feel the words have been less “tortured”.
LET A = Millette’s Red Chips
LET B = 2009 Bentham paper highlighted Red Chips
IF A = B
AND
IF A is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal PRIMER PAINT
THEREFORE IT STANDS TO REASON THAT
B must also equal PRIMER PAINT
IF B is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal NANO-THERMITE
THAN A cannot equal B
Mr. Mohr has published a video that argues for a certain set of beliefs.
One of those beliefs is that Dr. Millette studied the 9/11 WTC red dust chips that were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper. A = B.
In support of this belief, Mr. Mohr uses a quote from one of the scientists who authored the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Farrer.
Unexpanded and with no further context provided, Dr. Farrer’s quote ‘literally’ agrees with Mr. Mohr’s argument that Dr. Millette studied 9/11 WTC red dust chips that were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper. A = B.
Hence Mr. Mohr is asserting;
IF A = B
AND
IF A is foolproof tested properly and shown to equal PRIMER PAINT
THEREFORE IT STANDS TO REASON THAT
B must also equal PRIMER PAINT.
If, as Mr. Mohr clearly “inferred”, that Dr. Farrer believed A = B, Dr. Farrer in effect was providing agreement B must also equal PRIMER PAINT. A belief that was clearly in line with the one held and promoted by Mr. Mohr.
In the same published video, Mr. Mohr also states that Dr. Farrer stands firmly behind his finding that;
B was foolproof tested properly and shown to equal NANO-THERMITE.
PRIMER PAINT A, is not a substance match for NANO-THERMITE B.
Therefore, Mr. Mohr is now stating that Dr. Farrer’s findings are in total contradiction with the assertion that he believes A (Millette’s Red Chips) = B (2009 Bentham paper highlighted Red Chips).
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
Very good, Criteria! This is really very good!
The three premises (the statements preceded by the word "IF") cannot all be true.
Let me number these three premises:
(1) A = B
(2) A is PRIMER PAINT
(3) B is NANO-THERMITE
Yes. Farrer asserts that premise (1) is TRUE.
Yes, Mohr asserts that premise (1) is TRUE, and that premise (2) is TRUE, and that it follows that premise (3) is FALSE. Very good! You undertstand Chris Mohr's argument!
Yes, Farrer does.
WRONG!
No, Farrer does not say this, and Mohr does not claim, imply or suggest that Farrer says this!
Quite the contrary: Mohr very clearly, and twice, points out that Farrer still believes that premise (3) is TRUE. It would thus follow that Farrer believes that premise (2) is FALSE, although I am not sure at this time whether we have a quote from Farrer, or a claim by Mohr, to that effect.
Yes, Farrer asserts that premise (2) is TRUE.
Correct.
Strictly speaking, as Harrit et al mention, a formulation of nanothermite in an suitable organic binder could conceivably be painted on steel like a primer is, and would be reddish, although I am not sure to what extent the Al particles would influence the hue and shade. But I agree that, realistically, primer paint and nano-thermite would be different substances.
No, because you misattribute the premises. Farrer does NOT assert that all three premises (1), (2) and (3) are true, he only does so for assertions (1) and (3) - A=B, and B=nanothermite.
Now let's not forget the context here: Mohr in his video reports on allegations by Harrit, Jones and Ryan (iirc) that Millette looked at the wrong chips - i.e. these authors claim that (1) is FALSE. In contrast, Mohr shows, Farrer believes (1) is TRUE - Farrer thus disagrees with his co-authors on that particular point.
(1), (2) and (3) cannot all be correct. At least one of them has to be FALSE.
Harrit, Jones and Ryan assert that (1) is FALSE - A is not = B
Mohr, and the regulars here, assert that (3) is FALSE - B is not nanothermite, while (1) and (2) are TRUE.
Farrer asserts that (1) and (3) are TRUE. I don't know what he asserts about (2) - if he believes (2) is FALSE (A is not primer paint), then he is consistent. If he believes (2) is TRUE (A is primer paint), then Farrer believes three contradictory things at the same time. This would have to get resolved by Farrer then. Mohr merely reports on his assertions.
Tony has had no luck so far in a different thread. I don't think the truthers in this one will even dare to try. It's a hot potato no one wants to catch.
Do big red letters help cover up you have no evidence thermite damaged any steel on 911?
We know the paper was not accepted by reality based journals. The fantasy thermite experts had to pay to publish and fool a fringe few. They also have a 911 truth online journal of woo. A celebration of ignorance.
We know there is no damage to WTC steel due to thermite.
Some old paranoid conspiracy theorists took the time to make a paper and fake a conclusion. Reading comprehension skills clearly show the paper did not prove thermite.
When will you discuss no WTC steel was damaged by thermite?
Was thermite used in WTC 7? Who planted the thermite in your fantasy plot, and how do the 19 who really did all the damage on 911 fit in the fantasy?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
That old Dodge on the previous page seems to be still running well.
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
FTFM
FTFY
Keep in mind, Dr. Farrer's email response came after he read Dr. Millette’s study, including that study’s conclusions that the tested red chips were a formulation of primer paint.
Mr. Mohr never reveals any belief of his own, or by Dr. Farrer, that Dr. Millette’s substance identification testing was flawed.
In fact, we know that Mr. Mohr fully supports Dr. Millette’s conclusions and we know that the test protocols used by Dr. Millette were a legitimate means of substance identification.
When you consider the facts, how can we not conclude that Mr. Mohr has created an untenable contradiction.
Mr. Mohr believed Dr. Millette used matching chips, and Mr. Mohr believed that Dr. Millette followed legitimate test protocols flawlessly.
Mr. Mohr quoted scientist, Dr. Farrer as holding firm that the chips were found to be nano-thermite, and also a match for those that Dr. Millette tested.
Either Mr. Mohr misrepresented that quote from Dr. Farrer’s email that supports agreement that the chips were a match when that was not Dr. Farrer’s actual belief, or the quote was contextually true and Dr. Farrer believed the chips matched, but since the final conclusions failed to agree, Dr. Farrer must have believed that Dr. Millette performed flawed substance identification testing.
I did refer to this point previously;
The contradiction comes from Mr. Mohr and he fails to address it.
When Dr. Farrer was quoted, he certainly was well aware that his chip results did not agree with Dr. Millette’s chip results. So, he must not have believed the chips were truly a match, or, he believed that Dr. Millette had failed to do his tests properly.
In summation.
Mr. Mohr has Dr. Farrer agreeing the chips matched.
Mr. Mohr believes Dr. Millette made no mistakes in testing the chips.
Mr Mohr in effect has Dr. Farrer agreeing that Dr. Millette tested matching chips, which assuming they were tested properly, produced two substance identification conclusions which totally contradicted each other.
These are some of the followup questions that Mr. Mohr should have sent to Dr. Farrer before he decided to selectively quote and publish from their private email correspondence;
Do you believe that your chips matched those tested by Dr. Millette, and if so, do you believe that Dr. Millette arrived at a contradictory conclusion because of improper testing?
If you agree that the chips were a match and that Dr. Millette properly tested his chips, how do you explain the untenable contradiction with your own conclusions?
Since you have firmly stated your believe in your chip conclusions, is not the only possible explanation for the contradiction, either the chips were not a match, or Dr. Millette’s testing was flawed?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, odd isn't it that Farrer would do that, except of course, he didn't, and Mohr did not say he did, did not imply he did. YOU imply he must have been, That's on you.
What Farrer DID say, that goes against what others involved in the Harrit study have said, is that the chips Millette used could not be discerned as different from those that Farrer himself had examined with his 'trained eye'. Or does Farrer not qualify as having a 'trained eye'?
Now when you going to get around to asking Farrer himself if he has any issue with Mohr's video, if so, what are (is) they (it)? Once again I point out that you are saying that Farrer gets a raw deal from Mohr's reporting. The gold standard would seem to be how Farrer himself views this, not you or Ziggi. Its your claim of an error, seems to be your onus to prove it yet all you seem willing to do is put forth your opinion rather than find out if the subject of the reporting feels the same way.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
It,'s up to Harrit, Jones, and Farrer, to show that Dr. Millette's tests were wrong, he provided a valid falsification to their paper, they have the responsiblity to show with evidence that their
Conclusion has validity, yet we see nothing but double talk from them.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,900
Yes.
OR Farrer has contradictory beliefs.
Now we know from direct quotes that Farrer believed the chips are a match.
It follows that EITHER Farrer believes that Millette's conclusions about what the chips are are wrong OR that Farrer believes contradictory things.
If the latter, then the problem lies with Farrer and needs to be resolved by Farrer.
If the former, then there is no contradiction, only disagreement (on which conclusion is wrong and which is right).
Yes, would.Criteria said:
By the same, symmetric logic,
If Harrit et al obtained bogus test results on chips that indeed matched those highlighted in the 2012 Millette report, than the message in Mr. Mohr’s video that Dr. Farrer believed the chips were a match would stand, without a contradiction.
Well Criteria, Rev. Mohr has been given many chances to correct his mistakes and apologize. Most them had even been explained to him via emails before he posted his stupid video and he was given a fair chance to make corrections. Rev. Mohr has no excuses for his arrogant behaviour and I see no reason for you to allow the good Reverend to remain sheltered in his massive Ivory Tower while his buddies face the music out on the field.
In your next PM please tell him to answer your comments and questions on the forum. It would be a good start to address his unethical manipulation of the context of Dr. Farrer´s comments about TEM analysis, the one that Dave Thomas refuses to address:
Post your PMs if Rev. Mohr refuses.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I find it funny that you consider Chris Mohrs video important enough to commit this much effort. You would think actually getting anyone in the scientific world to take the Harrit et al paper seriously.
It's gained no traction what so ever, I'm sure a Youtube video is responsible.
The part you guys ignore is the fact is the stuff they claimed to find could not do anything to the structure. The best it could do is give a mild light show. You guy's lost all intrest from science when you were amazed that an organic compound burned in air.
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
I understand that it is frustrating to you that I'm not falling for your demand that I agree with all those words you and Criteria are trying to cram into my mouth.
I just don't see the need to play along with your absurd mind games. If picking on me is the best you can do to rationalize yourselves out of responding to, say Oystein's detailed takedowns of Criteria's meanderings here and here, well, then, go right ahead. You're not fooling anyone (besides mindless trutherbots).
Last edited:
Oh please Dave, it is absurd to suggest that being asked to address specific questions equals being asked to automatically agree with the answers according to the person asking the questions. You are of course being asked to see if you can debunk those answers, which happen to be that:
1) Dr. Farrer performed the TEM analysis of the aluminum platelets after the nano-thermite paper had been published.
2) According to Dr. Jones, the TEM and the XRD analysis on those platelets found "no known aluminum bearing compound" as well as not being able to identify a form of elemental aluminum. Further, this means that these results either debunked both Millette and Harrit, or they were invalid due to samples being too small or some other reason.
Criteria has given you several times the relevant links above where I originally made my case. Once you have addressed this we can discuss the integrity of Rev. Mohr as a technical 911truth researcher and journalist, and from there the value of his YouTube video claims, which are after all supposed to be the subject of this thread.
I have in fact answered the issue of Dr. Farrer being quoted about the similarity of the chips, more than once. My last answer was in fact addressed to you less than 24 hours ago, and it is even more appropriate now than then:
Now Dave, are you going to change the subject once more?