• 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

Which if true does make the entire event a crime scene which should have been rigorously analyzed for years, not hauled away to scrapyards in months.
Aircraft - check
Forensic analysis of the result of aircraft impact and resultant fires - check

What exactly is the area to be cordoned off for that will take months to do?




I find this video full of intriguing suppositions. The silver stream stuff seems rather irrelevant, but there's a lot of "meat" in the remaining minutes. 15 minutes of WTC7 motive...

http://youtu.be/Znfa6OMy_pQ
Maybe later - I'm at work

Also, out of curiosity.... How does an OCT supporter reconcile the explosively cut stairwells documented by Jennings?
Documented? You have a very loose definition of that. Then again it comes from the person who has already decided that there was unreacted explosive material in the dust.
In the dark the building shook and filled with choking dust, while they were in a part of the stairwell where the direction of the stairs changes. Jennings did not see any explosion of destroyed stairwell. Hess, who was with him says no explosion.
 
Anyone not prepared to consider their opinion to be in error has no credibility in my opinion.

Which is relevant to what I said exactly how?

Somehow I do not believe you are up to the challenge.

Your belief in this respect is clearly as well-founded as all your other beliefs.

Dave
 
Which if true does make the entire event a crime scene which should have been rigorously analyzed for years, not hauled away to scrapyards in months.

You do know, don't you, that most of the debris from the WTC site was removed to sites designated as crime scenes and then rigorously analysed for relevant evidence exactly as you say it should have been? That seems to be something truthers like to pretend didn't happen.

Dave
 
Which if true does make the entire event a crime scene which should have been rigorously analyzed for years, not hauled away to scrapyards in months.

Part of the operation, sifting and checking debris at the Fresh Kills site:
 

Attachments

  • fresh kills.jpg
    fresh kills.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 3
Anyone not prepared to consider their opinion to be in error has no credibility in my opinion.

It is is easy for you because you know that few people will look down on you for supporting the status quo. It is not easy for anyone to change their mind about a strongly held opinion. It takes both courage and an ability to stand back and objectively view the side you so strongly disagree with.

Agreed, and quite a few have passed through this forum and admitted they'd started out as 'Truthers' of various levels of belief. There have been threads devoted to the subject.

What's telling in this discussion with you is that you abandon very pertinent questions when it gets to the "this should trouble your belief system" stage. You've done so many times, to the point where people have given up repeating the same questions. A few examples:

If the Bentham team learned how to distinguish between thermitic and non-thermitic red-gray chips by eye, why didn't they publish evidence of the difference?

If the Bentham team performed many resistivity tests, why didn't they publish the results to illustrate the difference between thermitic chips and paint?

How could a paint-thin layer of thermitic material ever damage structural steel anyway?

Why didn't these chips ignite in the heat of the burning towers or the debris pile?
 
I would send that very question back at you only I know the answer.

No you don't. I've been wrong many times and if presented with evidence of my error I accept it and move on. This is how learning goes. I'm still learning everyday (and I'm not ashamed to admit it).

Anyone not prepared to consider their opinion to be in error has no credibility in my opinion.

I've never not considered the possibility my opinion could not be in error on this subject. That's why I've read as much from both sides as I could. In fact, I'm positive I've researched both side far more than you.

I don't like my opinion. It is a terrible opinion. Unfortunately, it is my honest opinion, in spite of how unpopular it is.

It is is easy for you because you know that few people will look down on you for supporting the status quo. It is not easy for anyone to change their mind about a strongly held opinion. It takes both courage and an ability to stand back and objectively view the side you so strongly disagree with.

Right back at you.

Somehow I do not believe you are up to the challenge.

What challenge? Present factual evidence to support your opinion. When questioned answer the questions, even if the answer is not to your liking. You and the "truth" movement refuse to do this. You look at the questions as a trap, they are but, if you have an honest answer, what's the problem?
 
Last edited:
"No you don't. I've been wrong many times and if presented with evidence of my error I accept it and move on. This is how learning goes. I'm still learning everyday (and I'm not ashamed to admit it)."

I do not dispute that you have made factual errors. What I dispute is your ability to change your mind.

"I've never not considered the possibility my opinion could not be in error on this subject. That's why I've read as much from both sides as I could. In fact, I'm positive I've researched both side far more than you."

Your positiveness that you have done more research on the subject than I have, given you know very little about my work, blatantly shows how right I am.

"When questioned answer the questions. You and the "truth" movement refuse to do this.

More of your dogma.

'Sometimes' answers are refused. Not always!
 
911 truth fails to discuss zero damage by thermite to WTC steel

I do not dispute that you have made factual errors. What I dispute is your ability to change your mind. ...!

911 truth has no worries about about making factual errors. 911Truth and AE911T offer no facts. 911Truth is based on opinions, in place of facts, boiling down to lies based on ignorance.

Hard to make factual errors, thermite, CD, and inside job are fantasies.

911 truth ignores evidence, ignores facts; No thermite damage to WTC steel on 9/11, ignored, never discussed.



How does 911 truth avoid making factual errors? 9/11 Truth uses no facts, 9/11 Truth don't need no stinkin facts.
 
Last edited:
'Sometimes' answers are refused. Not always!

Why would you refuse any questions? As the minority opinion I would think you would be eager to take on all queries. If you're confident in your opinion this should not be a problem.

I've seen questions to you that would require speculation on your part. This is because the motive of the people in question is considered suspect. You don't consider this which is OK. The questions as to motives will still stand. People will wonder why they refuse to release data and are unwilling to assist in facilitating an independent study. You find this to be OK, most do not. Odd you expect absolute transparency in the government but don't expect it in people you support.
 
What's telling in this discussion with you is that you abandon very pertinent questions when it gets to the "this should trouble your belief system" stage. You've done so many times, to the point where people have given up repeating the same questions. A few examples:

  • If the Bentham team learned how to distinguish between thermitic and non-thermitic red-gray chips by eye, why didn't they publish evidence of the difference?
  • If the Bentham team performed many resistivity tests, why didn't they publish the results to illustrate the difference between thermitic chips and paint?
  • How could a paint-thin layer of thermitic material ever damage structural steel anyway?
  • Why didn't these chips ignite in the heat of the burning towers or the debris pile?
[note: I added the bullets to the quote]

Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"
  1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE
  2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magner is of identical elemental composition is FALSE
  3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE
  4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.
Is there anything wrong with any of these statements?

Criteria will never ever touch Harrit's premises, sources or logic, for fear he might be led to admit that Harrit is a stupid bozo who links error to error to error to error.
Think of the consequences that shattered belief might lead to?
  • Perhaps an inkling that Harrit's "active thermitic material" paper might be bozoic, too?
  • Perhaps a faint hunch that the TM really has no evidence for any explosives, thermites or anything?

Watch Criteria run run run away from all these questions in this theater soon!
 
Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"
  1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE
  2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magnert is of identical elemental composition is FALSE
  3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE
  4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.
Is there anything wrong with any of these statements?

Two spelling mistakes...........................:D
 
......
Which if true does make the entire event a crime scene which should have been rigorously analyzed for years, not hauled away to scrapyards in months.
...............

.........

...The federal presence was much larger in New York, as well. A dizzying blur of acronym soup arrived to help: CDC, FAA, FBI, HHS and dozens more. At the height of the federal response, there were a total of 6,547 federal employees, including 1,544 from FEMA and its US&R task forces, supporting operations in New York and Virginia. Of the 27 available FEMA US&R teams, more than 20 eventually rotated through New York, representing a total of 1,240 firefighters and 80 search dogs. As many as eight teams at a time operated in New York. http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_first_respondersfeds_join/
*****
And although this is a fire scene, it is also a crime scene, which means a large unit of crime scene investigators is present, working from a tent at the corner of West St. and Liberty. (Report from Ground Zero by Dennis Smith, p.194)

There are two dump sites. One is in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, and the other is in Great Kills, Staten Island. At each location police investigations unit detectives and FBI agents are spotting and sifting through every truckload, searching for the flight recorders of the planes and for any remains of the victims. (ibid, p.201)
*****
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI's response was immediate. In a matter of hours we had deployed to each of the crash sites, ordered dozens of seasoned management personnel back to Washington, and fully staffed a 24/7 operation at our Command Center with up to 500 persons representing approximately 30 federal agencies. At the height of the 9/11 investigation, known as PENTTBOM, the FBI assigned 7,000 agents to assist full-time. The majority were reassigned from other national security and criminal investigative work. The lack of prior counterterroism training and experience, although not recognized by the OIG, needs to be factored into this discussion. ...Meanwhile, PENTTBOM became the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. In spite of operating under severe handicaps, the New York Office - relocated to a garage on 26th street, and lacking a proficient infrastructure - began a 24/7 operation utilizing 300 investigators from 37 agencies. The 1-800 toll-free line set up in our Atlanta office received 180,000 calls from a shocked public eager to assist. 225,000 e-mails were received on the FBI's internet site. Evidence response teams from throughout the country were dispatched to New York, Washington and Pittsburgh. Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/062503rolince.html
*****
Approximately 7,000 FBI Employees Were Redirected in Early Weeks. At its peak, approximately 6,000 Special Agents were working on the investigation with assistance from support staff. Additional resources were dedicated to the related threats and tragedies such as the anthrax investigation, Olympics security, the Richard Reid investigation, and the Daniel Pearl kidnapping. New FBI Investigative Groups Were Created. The Financial Review Group, Document Exploitation Group, and E-Mail Exploitation Group were all created since September 11th. In addition, the Telephone Applications Group as well as the Threat, Warning, Analysis and Dissemination Groups were both expanded. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/05/fbireorganizationfactsheet.pdf
*****
At least 449 responding organizations in New York City. Over 8,000 people given security clearance to work at Pentagon crash site Good look at Arlington County, Virginia (Pentagon) first responder organizational structure http://dels.nas.edu/dr/docs/harrald.pdf
*****
Flight 93: Shanksville At Shanksville, which was by far the smallest of the three 9/11 crash scenes, over 1,100 people from 74 agencies and organizations worked at the scene. On 9/11 alone, these included: • 8 Police Departments • 7 EMS Services • 8 Fire Departments • 10 Emergency Management Agencies • NTSB • ATF • FBI • CISM • Red Cross • United AirlinesSource: PowerPoint presentation by Rick Lohr, Director of Somerset County Emergency Management Agency. Download it here as a PDF http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/SomersetCountyEmergencyManagementAge.pdf
*****
In addition to the estimated 10,000 Fire Department of New York (FDNY) personnel, an estimated 30,000 other workers and volunteers potentially were exposed to numerous psychological stressors, environmental toxins, and other physical hazards. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5335a1.htm
*****
Because of ongoing fire activity and the large numbers of civilians and rescue workers who were killed during the attacks, approximately 11,000 FDNY firefighters and many emergency medical service (EMS) personnel worked on or directly adjacent to the rubble and incurred substantial exposures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12238534&dopt=Abstract
*****
OSHA calculates that in over 3.7 million work hours, only 57 non-life threatening injuries were recorded at the WTC site. http://www.pdhealth.mil/library/downloads/The Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration%20Response.pdf
*****
You’re dealing with a work scene that, in the first week or two, had probably two to three thousand, if not more, emergency responders on the scene. Pretty much 24 hours a day. All of them with various backgrounds and training. You had construction workers, you had heavy-equipment operators, you had medical workers, firefighters, police officers, hygienists, military personnel. All of them with different levels of training, different types of equipment. So you had to try and logistically bring in all of the equipment for these people. You’re bringing in multiple manufacturers and vendors. —Firefighter-special operations panel member http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF176/CF176.ch2.pdf
*****
Fresh Kills Crime Scene Info * The site covered 175 acres. * 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day * 17,000 tons of material were processed daily. * 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists. * New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero -- and one, Special Agent Gerry Fornino, personally worked over 1,818 hours at the vehicle recovery operation with the Port Authority and NYPD. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm
*****
Number of U.S. Customs Agency Volunteers working search and inspection at Fresh Kills Landfill: at least 193 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/March/custoday_location.xml
*****
from RECOVERY: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER RECOVERY OPERATION AT FRESH KILLS (PDF of Traveling Exhibit) The exhibition chronicles the quiet history after September 11. The days at Fresh Kills ended as discreetly as they began. Debris removal at Ground Zero ended on June 28, 2002. The sorting at Fresh Kills officially ended on July 2 at 1:02 p.m. Recovered from the 1.8 million tons of material inspected: 4,257 human remains helped bring closure to hundreds of families; 54,000 personal items and 4,000 photographs, many returned to their owners; 1,358 personal and departmental vehicles; and thousands of tons of steel. The numbers are difficult to process, but these images begin to tell the story. The Police, FBI, City Sanitation workers, and the thousands who worked there made history “on the hill.” The hill that overlooks downtown Manhattan where the towers once stood is now changed forever – Mark Schaming Director of Exhibitions and Programs New York State Museum Above exhibit thanks to these organizations working at Fresh Kills: The New York Police Department The New York Fire Department The Federal Bureau of Investigation New York City Department of Sanitation Phillips and Jordan, Inc. The Fresh Kills Incident Commander, NYPD Inspector James Luongo, Lt. Bruce Bovino, FBI Special Agents Richard Marx and Gerry Fornino, the FBI Evidence Response Team, the NYPD Recovery Team, the Port Authority Police Department, NYC Department of Sanitation, and all the people from the World Trade Center Recovery Operation
*****
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives Fresh Kills debris management contract http://sept11.wasteage.com/ar/waste_fema_assigns_fresh/index.htm
*****
400 FBI Agents working at Fresh Kills (and some taking souvenirs?) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4373627/
*****
As you know, on September 11, 2001, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and New York Police Department (NYPD) detectives were dispatched to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York to process the debris of the World Trade Center (WTC) for physical evidence and human remains. This recovery effort, the largest and longest in the FBI's history, resulted in 1.8 million tons of debris being collected and examined by twenty-four federal, state, and local agencies. On September 12, 2001, I was designated to lead and coordinate this effort as an Evidence Response Team (ERT) Leader. This operation ceased in August 2002. –Richard B. Marx, Special Agent http://www.ussartf.org/news.htm Engineer salvage yard visits for steel inspection As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard. The duration of the visits, number of visits per yard, and the dates the yards were visited varied, depending on the volume of steel being processed, the potential significance of the steel pieces being found, salvage yard activities, weather, and other factors. Sixty-two engineer trips were made to Jersey City, 38 to Keasbey, 15 to Fresh Kills, and 16 to Newark. Three trips made in October included several ASCE engineers. Eleven engineer trips were made in November, 41 in December, 43 in January, 28 in February, and 5 through March 15, 2002. Source: FEMA WTC report, Appendix D
....
It is hard for the 911 truth followers to drop the fantasy. Like an illusion, they are not prepared with the thinking skills, reading comprehension, research abilities to fight the lies and dumbed down claims of CD.

What a sad movement based on ignorance and laziness.

Will 911 truth followers awakening to reality all the death and destruction was the act of 19 nuts and four planes... Will that awakening be like people realizing, Santa is not real. How gullible we are when we fail to take the time, and be assertive with a skeptical mind. Why can't the 911 truth followers gain the knowledge and use critical thinking skills before falling for the lies and delusional claims of a movement based solely and completely on the massive ignorance of the movements' followers.

The claim, the tagline, the BS which stands out for me. When they say, "we have overwhelming evidence". When asked to make a list of the evidence, they only present opinions based on lies, ignorance, and nonsense.
............
 
True Believers are indifferent to being wrong about facts. Facts do not hinder them from repeating obstinately wrong opinions.


When the brain synthesizes judgements from reason and emotion , Truthers don’t reason they are right, they feel they are right. To them rational arguments are costumes they don to fool others to feel like they do.
 
True Believers are indifferent to being wrong about facts. Facts do not hinder them from repeating obstinately wrong opinions.


When the brain synthesizes judgements from reason and emotion , Truthers don’t reason they are right, they feel they are right. To them rational arguments are costumes they don to fool others to feel like they do.

Faith based NOT reason based.

They know the answer - and neither facts nor reasoning can change them.
 
Faith based NOT reason based.

They know the answer - and neither facts nor reasoning can change them.

Incredulity-based, NOT reason based.

You fear the alternative too much to accept that yours might not be the answer - and neither facts nor reasoning will deter you from desparately clinging to that belief.
 
Faith based NOT reason based.

They know the answer - and neither facts nor reasoning can change them.

9/11 Truth and AE911T followers - Clueless, freely accepting without evidence the fantasy of thermite. Ignoring zero steel damaged by thermite. Unable to produce any evidence, running out of googled BS technobabble, last ditch efforts, a Gish Gallop of psychological projection.
 
Incredulity-based, NOT reason based.

You fear the alternative too much to accept that yours might not be the answer - and neither facts nor reasoning will deter you from desparately clinging to that belief.

Science is the determiner of truth for me, haven't got a clue what determines truth for you it seems to be some form of belief system not based on empirical data, and logic.
It appears to be some form of witch craft, Alchemy, worship of magic mystical dust!

You like Jones, Gage, Basile, and Harrit, can never admit your wrong grow up and move on!

Did I forget any truther, who also has shown a dishonesty when found to be in error?
 
Incredulity-based, NOT reason based.
...

Reason based?
You consistently run away from reason, facts and argument such as

Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"

  1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE
  2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magner is of identical elemental composition is FALSE
  3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE
  4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.

Is there anything wrong with any of these statements?

You take it on faith that Harrit is right and Oystein is wrong.
In order to preserve your face you won't dare touching the actual argument.

Reason based? You?
 
Reason based?
You consistently run away from reason, facts and argument such as

Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"
(snip - see list above)
You take it on faith that Harrit is right and Oystein is wrong.
In order to preserve your face you won't dare touching the actual argument.

Reason based? You?

Then there is the supposition that thermite is a fuse for conventional explosives. Thermite was first brought up by the TM in order to address the lack of the sounds of high explosives. In a roundabout , high explosives are back but thermite gots to still be there so its now a double fused (one to ignite thermite and thermite to ignite explosives, thank you Mr. Goldberg) explosive and STILL no sounds of high explosives.

Reasoning?? - oh please!
 
Reasoning?

WHY?
- Why demolish WTC 7. Please some real evidence, not just fantasy picked out of thin air.
The actually targeted buildings are connected by being easily recognized (and therefore easy to target) symbols of American Power.
We can easily see that the towers were world known symbols of American wealth.
We can easiy see that the Pentagon was world known and a symbol of American military might.
Flight 93, IMHO, was targeting the Capitol Building (It too is large and easily located from the air, the Whitehouse, not so much). That building (or the the Whitehouse, even though its harder to locate from the air) is a world known symbol of American political power.

WTC 7,,,,,,, just another large office structure in a city (and a country) with hundreds thousands(?) of them.
 
Last edited:
Then there is the supposition that thermite is a fuse for conventional explosives. Thermite was first brought up by the TM in order to address the lack of the sounds of high explosives. In a roundabout , high explosives are back but thermite gots to still be there so its now a double fused (one to ignite thermite and thermite to ignite explosives, thank you Mr. Goldberg) explosive and STILL no sounds of high explosives.

Reasoning?? - oh please!

Jones proposed thermite, thermate, nano thermite, black iron oxide thermate, and other BS.
As a clear lie, Jones is discoverer of the Red Grey paint chips Harrit followed his lead!

We know Jones is intellectually dishonest his track record proves that much, Criteria is just another follower of Jones not interested in truth at all. He has failed to show modification
of his theory to fit the evidence, he wants and is attempting to modify the evidence to fit the theory.
 
1. What tests in Harrit's paper and their respective results proves that the chips he tested were engineered thermite and not primer paint (of the type used on the towers) chips? What results MATCHED those of thermite?

2. In order to make the claim that they did in fact have red/gray, magnetically attracted PAINT CHIPS, which primer paint composition did they use in order to make that claim? They had to compare their results to something to make such a distinctive claim.

3. Why did Harrit go out of his way to NOT publish his results for the red/gray, magnetically attracted PAINT CHIPS to show how they differed from the very similar red/gray, magnetically attracted THERMITE chips.
I've got a related question.

Why do they present a microphotograph of a chip with the exact same look as a Kaolin-based paint (hexagonal platelets, organic binder, iron oxide crystals) without even noting that amazing similarity in the paper?

Maintaining that they knew very well that there were multiple kinds of chips and that only certain of them were thermitic, is becoming more and more a question of blind faith.
 
Reason based?
You consistently run away from reason, facts and argument such as

Most recently abandoned: A question about the validity of Harrit's conclusions in "Why the paint chips ain't paint"

  1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE
  2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magner is of identical elemental composition is FALSE
  3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE
  4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
  6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.

Is there anything wrong with any of these statements?

Yes. They are all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit. You presume to understand what Dr. Harrit wrote but your list reveals that you do not.

Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.

Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?
 
Yes. They are all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit. You presume to understand what Dr. Harrit wrote but your list reveals that you do not.

Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.

Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?

Please explain what he did mean? You obviously know so this should be a trivial request. Educate us..............

What did he get wrong?
 
Yes. They are all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit. You presume to understand what Dr. Harrit wrote but your list reveals that you do not.

Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.

Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?
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.

First:
Oystein said:
Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to the Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE.
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.

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:
Oystein said:
Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magnet is of identical elemental composition is FALSE.
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.

Third:
Oystein said:
Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE.
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.

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:
Oystein said:
Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE.
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%.

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:
Oystein said:
Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE.
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%.

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.
 
...
Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?
DSC still don't match, is that a redo?

No thermite was used on 911. Are you able to discuss why no steel was damaged by thermite on 911? No, you keep quibbling about fraud paper after your DSC knowledge from google failed to explain why the DSC don't match.

Then Harrit and Jones, the nuts and dolts of 911 truth have the energy problem, the samples does not match thermite. How did the super secret inside job fantasy MIB engineer super thermite to have less energy? Paper beats thermite for heat energy, and plastics, some have 14 times more heat energy than thermite; then take into account the thermite Jones and Harrit say they found has even less energy. What is that for? Go ahead, google that.

How did they engineer the super duper nano-thermite to burn at 430C, way below the fires on 911? Did all the super duper burn up in seconds after the massive WTC fires?

Where did the MIB evil doers plant the thermite in the fantasy world of Jones and Harrit?

Change the world, celebrate ignorance, 911 truth; infinite BS with periods of maximum ignorance. Thermite failed, what is next for a movement which has no evidence?

Again, why is there no damage to steel from thermite? Why can't you answer the simple questions? We have seen googled up BS posted so far, and that knowledge has run out, and failed to save the BS claim of thermite.

The terrorists used planes, not some thermite found only in the failed minds of two old paranoid conspiracy theorists, Jones and Harrit.

Where is Jones? Wo ist Jones ? 14 years and the heros of 911 truth have found to be nothing but liars and BS artists. No evidence loons.




911 truth has to ignore reality... and 911 truth followers can't answer questions they can't google up and repeat.
I've got a related question.

Why do they present a microphotograph of a chip with the exact same look as a Kaolin-based paint (hexagonal platelets, organic binder, iron oxide crystals) without even noting that amazing similarity in the paper?

Maintaining that they knew very well that there were multiple kinds of chips and that only certain of them were thermitic, is becoming more and more a question of blind faith.
It is funny, the paper shows the platelets, just like kaolin...
911 truth followers don't study the paper, it is their Bible, it can't be wrong.
 
What's the matter with the one I gave you; you know, the one you included in your reply?

Here it is again, for your convenience.


Thanks for this splendid example of an ad hominem logical fallacy. I can understand why you need to change the subject away from what Farrar said about Millette's chips, though. Wouldn't want people thinking about that, would we?

I'll make this easier for you to understand with an analogy. Gage, Jones, Harrit all say that the ONLY way to create iron-rich microspheres is via the thermitic reaction. Let's use "four-legged alligators" to represent this claim, and "five-legged alligators" to represent the claim that iron-rich microspheres can be obtained simply by burning beams coated with primer paint.

Gage, Jones, Harrit are saying the equivalent of "All alligators have four legs. There are no five-legged alligators."

But, my experiment showed that you can find five-legged alligators.

Your rebuttal then takes the form "JUST ONE LONELY FIVE-LEGGED ALLIGATOR FROM A POTENTIALLY HUGE SAMPLE BASE..."

Those of us whose eyes are not covered by ideological glasses can easily see that you are simply moving the goalposts.

Like GlennB noted, desperation indeed!
I see you have gone silent after my initial response to your above post.

Mr. Thomas, I already told you that I am asking about the original source. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10959309&postcount=975

Chris bases his YouTube claims on partial quotes from Dr. Farrer. He relies on an alleged email that potential skeptics are not allowed to check for verification and proper context.

Would you teach your university students to accept this as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?

I do see the blur of moving goalposts but you appear to be the one hastily moving them.

Your old anemic proof regarding iron-rich microspheres and your disreputable promotion of burning steel wool does make your claims far from trustworthy, IMHO.

Your five-legged aligator is a splendid example of a logical fallacy. I can understand why you need to change the subject away from what Farrer said about Millette's chips.

My pointing out previous examples of you poor workmanship is not an hominem fallacy. And what has Dr. Farrer said. Searching the thread, I can see that Ziggi tried to talk to you about that and you walked away from the discussion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10728934&postcount=219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10737482&postcount=303
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10738266&postcount=309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10739739&postcount=316

So Mr. Thomas, by all means talk about how come Chris gives the impression in his video that Farrer is saying that they decided to keep TEM data done on the aluminum plates prior to publication away from the published paper, even though Farrer did not do that particular TEM analysis until after the paper had been published!

Or do you not want people to think about that?

I will address more of your post when and if you respond to this one.
 
Last edited:
I do see the blur of moving goalposts but you appear to be the one hastily moving them.

:rolleyes:

Anything to avoid answering a question......................

I will address more of your post when and if you respond to this one.

Care to do more than handwave all the questions presented to you? I know you'll say you've addressed them but, people can read.

You do know people are reading all of the posts? There is one person that can be easily documented as dodging questions. Want to guess who it is?
 
Last edited:
I see you have gone silent after my initial response to your above post.

Mr. Thomas, I already told you that I am asking about the original source. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10959309&postcount=975

Chris bases his YouTube claims on partial quotes from Dr. Farrer. He relies on an alleged email that potential skeptics are not allowed to check for verification and proper context.

Would you teach your university students to accept this as reputable research and good journalism?

Is this something you do not want to talk about?

I do see the blur of moving goalposts but you appear to be the one hastily moving them.

Your old anemic proof regarding iron-rich microspheres and your disreputable promotion of burning steel wool does make your claims far from trustworthy, IMHO.

Your five-legged aligator is a splendid example of a logical fallacy. I can understand why you need to change the subject away from what Farrer said about Millette's chips.

My pointing out previous examples of you poor workmanship is not an hominem fallacy. And what has Dr. Farrer said. Searching the thread, I can see that Ziggi tried to talk to you about that and you walked away from the discussion:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10728934&postcount=219
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10737482&postcount=303
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10738266&postcount=309
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10739739&postcount=316

So Mr. Thomas, by all means talk about how come Chris gives the impression in his video that Farrer is saying that they decided to keep TEM data done on the aluminum plates prior to publication away from the published paper, even though Farrer did not do that particular TEM analysis until after the paper had been published!

Or do you not want people to think about that?

I will address more of your post when and if you respond to this one.


He debunked the BS and lies of thermite; and you think the fantasy of thermite has evidence...

You were debunked, and you don't realize it. All you have is weak personal attacks, and you lie about other people. Why do you lie about stuff? Believing Jones is Harrit is the smoking gun of gullibility.
 
[ETA]I saw after posting this reply that BenjaminTR essentially wrote the same already. Thanks for that![/ETA]

Yes. They are all assumptions wrongly attributed to Dr. Harrit. You presume to understand what Dr. Harrit wrote but your list reveals that you do not.

Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.

Should I be squirming from the discomfort generated by list generating skill?

You don't provide any reasons or arguments to explain why these are not assumptions that Harrit makes or implies in his white paper.

Are you saying every single one of my list points is false?

Then you disagree with
1. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray paint chip would conform to thew Tnemec 99 recipe is FALSE​
But I am right, and here is why:
  • He presents the elemental composition of Chip a - it has lots of C, O, Fe, Si and Al, little Cr and Sr, some Ca and S, but no Zn or Mg.
  • He presents the Tnemec 99 recipe, notes that it contains significant amount of Zinc- and Magnesium compounds among the pigments
  • His argument: Since WTC paint has Zn and Mg, but Chip a doesn't, this means that Chip a is not WTC paint. This argument however implies an assumption that all WTC paint has Zn and Mg. However, we already know that there is at least one WTC paint - the LaClede shop primer, with lots of C, O, Fe, Si and Al, little Sr and Cr - that contains no Zn and Mg, and Chip a actually would be a good match for that particular primer paint, if you allow that Ca and S are still contamination. Harrit's argument is thus mistaken.
Please address this argument with reasons and arguments of your own and explain why you think that Harrit does NOT assume that Chip a should conform to the Tnemec 99 recipe with Zn and Mg if it were WTC paint!

Further, you disagree with my second claim:
2. Harrit's assumption that any red-gray chip pulled from the dust with a magnet is of identical elemental composition is FALSE​
But my claim is correct! This is because he makes his argument for one chip only - Chip a - but his conclusion is supposed to extend to ALL red-gray chips, as he describes no distinction between Chip a and any other red-gray chip to which this argument would not apply.
Please address why you think that his conclusion about Chip a is NOT based on an implied assumption that all chips have the same elemental composition, and yet is meant to apply to all red-gray chips!

Further, you disagree with my third claim:
3. Harrit's assumption that the Material Safety Data Sheet describes the proprietary Tnemec pigment in the 1967 Tnemec recipe is FALSE​
Harrit claims in the white paper:
"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:".​
So he clearly claims that the MSDS describes one of the pigments components, to the exclusion of the other pigments and the vehicle, and not the ready-mixed paint with all the pigments and all the vehicle components.
However, if you open that MSDS, you will notice that it is about a material called "SERIES 010 TNEMEC PRIMER RED" - primer, not pigment. The product class is described as "MODIFIED ALKYD" - alkyd resin is one of the vehicle components of the wet primer paint. Furthermore, it gives the "FORMULA WEIGHT BY VOLUME" as "12.0418 LB/GL" (pounds per gallon) which is 1.43 g/cm3. Compare this to the densities of the main pigments:
Talc: ~2.7 g/cm3Iron oxide: : ~5.2 g/cm3Calcium silicate: ~2.9 g/cm3Amorphous silica: ~2.2 g/cm3Zinc chromate: ~3.4 g/cm3All well above the density of that material described in the MDSD - they would certainly average > 3 g/cm3, and if mixed with 23% "mineral spirits" (assumption: 0.8 g/cm3), the mix would weigh at least 2.5 g/cm3. To reach 1.43 g/cm3, you'd need a pigment:organic vehicle ratio of about 30%:70% - which is pretty much the typical ratio for a ready-mixd paint, not a pigment.
Please provide reasons and arguments if you want to maintain your opinion that Harrit was correct to assume that this MSDS describes a pigment, and not the ready wet paint!

Further, you disagree with my fourth and fifth claim:
4. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the pigments given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE
5. Harrit's assumption that the percentages of the vehicle ingredients given by Sramek 1967 are based on the wet paint mass as 100% is FALSE​
Now these two is easily shown:
Table D-1 in Harrit's paper lists the percentages by weight of four pigments and seven vehicle components.
  • The four pigments (Iron oxide, Zinc yellow, Tnemec pigment and Diatomaceous silica) add up to 100%
  • The seven vehicle components (Soya alkyd resin solids, Hard resin, Raw linseed oil, Boiled linseed oil, Suspension agents, Driers and anti-skin, Thinners) add up to 100.1%.
  • All components, pigments and organics, add up to 200.1%
So it is obvious that the number "Zinc yellow 20.3%" does not refer to the mass of the ready-mixed wet paint (that includes the vehicle), but to the pigments only.
Similarly, "Tnemec pigment 33.7%" does not refer to the mass of the ready-mixed wet paint (that includes the vehicle), but to the pigments only.
Similary, "Thinners 32.3%" refers to the vehicle only, not the ready-mixed wet paint that includes pigments.
Later in the white paper however, Harrit writes "the Tnemec pigment contributed 33.7 % to the wet primer paint" - this is, as we now know, clearly FALSE.
Further, Harrit writes
"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 %."​
He clearly expresses here the assumption that "Thinners 32.3%" refers to the wet paint as 100% - which, as we saw, is clearly FALSE.
And finaly, in Table 1, Harrit gives the percentage of "Zinc chromate" in the "Composition in wet paint" as "20.3 %", which, as we just saw, is clearly FALSE.
If you want to maintain your opinion that Harrit assumes correctly that these percentages apply to the wet paint, and not seperately to the pigments only and the vehicle only, respectively, please provide reasons and arguments!

Further you disagree with my sixth claim:
6. As a result of these FALSE assumptions, he gets his math WRONG and grossly overestimates the percentage of Zn, Mg and Cr in the dry Tnemec 99 primer.​
We will come back to this after you have given reasons and arguments to support your assumption that Harrit was right with his assumptions, or that he did not really assume what I attribute to him.
 
Last edited:
Making a list and saying this is what Dr. Harrit believes is much easier than making a list and proving that this is what Dr. Harrit believes.
No one knows what Dr. Harrit believes, except Dr. Harrit. The list is about what Dr. Harrit says.
 
I don't like my opinion. It is a terrible opinion. Unfortunately, it is my honest opinion, in spite of how unpopular it is.



It is is easy for you because you know that few people will look down on you for supporting the status quo. It is not easy for anyone to change their mind about a strongly held opinion. It takes both courage and an ability to stand back and objectively view the side you so strongly disagree with.


Well said Criteria


Sent from our shared looking glass platform
 
Two minutes into this testimony: http://youtu.be/3Tr0TZa3WeI ...
LOL, they are right on the stair when it blown up by explosives? lol, means Jennings is dead. He can't be talking now, he was blown up with the stairs... or...
Reality has the explosion was parts of the WTC towers hitting WTC 7.

Again, to be clear, if an explosives went off on their stair, in the stairwell, they would be dead from the blast.

Explosives which have no blast effects. It was part of the tower impacting WTC 7, a kinetic energy event, not an explosive going off.
An explosive would scramble Jennings brain, he would die.

The interview proves it was not explosives; Jennings is alive. Darn, there goes the CD BS. Why did Jennings make it out when explosives were going off early? lol, it gets worse, the woo keeps coming back from the dead.
 
Don't waste my time. Post the text.

Dave

Basically :
when we reached the 6th floor the landing "gave way" and I was left hanging.

Beachnut is correct, IF the concrete landing that Jennings was standing on was destroyed by explosives then Jennings would be severely injured or dead.

Hess said no explosion.

FACTS: the lights went out, the building shook, the stairwell filled with smoke and dust.

THAT is consistent with WTC 7 being hit by WTC 1 debris that ripped out a large section of the SW corner of the building as well as dozens of windows.

One MUST note, though Notconvinced and Criteria will ignore this, that IF this occurred well before WTC 1 collapsed, then there were quite a few other people in WTC 7, none of whom report any 'explosion' and certainly not one below the sixth floor. In fact Jennings' timeline does not jibe with anyone's else's. One need only go to his description of the firefighters. He says that they contacted the FFs before either tower fell. That the FFs left the area twice, which he attributes to each tower coming down. No, that simply does not fit into ANY other timeline within or around WTC 7.
 

Back
Top Bottom