View Single Post
Old 30th December 2011, 03:12 PM   #1233
Master Poster
chrismohr's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Kevin Ryan says no access to his dust samples

Kevin Ryan just informed me in no uncertain terms that he wants no part of these WTC dust tests. I asked him if he would provide a few red gray chips that HE believes are thermitic. He said no. Then I asked if he would at least look at the red gray chips in Jim Millette's collection to be sure we're looking at chips he considers thermitic, not just paint (Kevin believes he has samples of both and that they are different). He refused even to answer, accusing me of being dishonest by not revealing that the lab guy I found had been involved in "deceptive" 9/11 research, linking me to an EPA study Millette was part of, and asking me to ask him why he ignored the iron microspheres in this report.

I thought, OK, (gulp) I'll ask our lab guy if there waas anything "deceptive" in his EPA work or if he has any reason to falsify data in our tests. Here is Dr. Millette's most recent email in response: "Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community... I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked (an original copy of the article published in Environmental Health Perspectives [57_Lioy-characterization east of wtc.pdf]) to suggest that we were publishing misleading data. Jim Millette"

So... I have a high degree of trust in Dr. Millette's integrity, knowledge and abilities. I asked several dozen labs, universities, firefighters, police forensic people in several states, etc etc etc. and Dr. Millette and his lab have shown themselves to be by far the most eminently qualified and openminded.

Kevin Ryan disagrees and has already rejected the upcoming results because 1) the experimenter is deceptive and 2) I am dishonest. I predict he will also reject it because he will say these tests will be on paint chips, not thermitic chips, even though he himself refused to participate in any way in deciding which chips to test!

I am telling everyone this in the interests of full disclosure. If you are a 9/11 Truth advocate, know that Kevin Ryan has rejected this study befopre it is even launched. I would love your support as well as the support of JREF'ers but know that Kevin Ryan does NOT support this. Some of you who have gotten to know me will nevertheless decide that finding out the truth is more important than what a 9/11 Truth leader says. To you I will say thank you, you deserve the 9/11 Truth moniker in the best sense of the word.
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911
WTC Dust study Hundreds more links and info both sides:
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top