Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? - Page 45

DGM · 8th February 2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

A request for help @ The Almond:

1. Could you describe the method / algorithm / assumptions / whatever it takes that you use to do your MC-Sims of XEDS graphs, such that I could copy&paste it into a paper as a footnote or similar?

2. Could you run another XEDS MC-sim for a bulk of A242-steel that has the following composition:
Fe: 71.7%
O: 27.3%
Mn: 0.58%
Cu: 0.22%
C: 0.15%
Cr: 0.07%
This would be oxidized steel with on average the iron oxidation state being Fe₃O₄, and 0.8% Manganese etc in the original steel that get diluted by the extra O. If I assume Fe₂O₃ all the way through, these percentages wouldn't change significantly for my purposes.
I want to check the relative pealk heights of Fe:O, and see if Mn has a chance to rise above noise, Cu and Cr to disappear in noise. The big question mark I have is on Carbon. Figure 6 in Harrit e.al. has small C-peaks, but they appear larger than I would think with C being only a small trace in the steel. But perhaps these lighter elements get real excited?

@ All: I'd love for you to find links and perhaps abstracts or conclusions of essays, papers, blog entries on the web that reviewed Harrit e.al. and found that there was paint, not thermite.

Thanks!

Did you send him a PM?

Oystein · 8th February 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

Did you send him a PM?

I just did, but only after prepared dinner, which is cooking now ^^

Ivan Kminek · 9th February 2012, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

@ All: I'd love for you to find links and perhaps abstracts or conclusions of essays, papers, blog entries on the web that reviewed Harrit e.al. and found that there was paint, not thermite.

Thanks!

Oystein, here is some list of the relevant articles I remember (but you know them as well). My "abstracts" (written basically according to my poor memory) are of course very incomplete and perhaps even misleading in some cases; I have no time to read these articles again now. But you have at least url addresses of these documents here in one place

1) http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
French physicist and a member of truthers community Frédéric Henry-Couannier analyzed red-gray chips separated with magnet from the WTC dust in the year 2010 (?) using SEM microscopy and XEDS spectroscopy. He found chips with similar composition and look as chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper. He, however, did not find any round shiny iron rich particles in the chips heated up to 900 °C under air. Chips remained red and only carbon was missing in their XEDS spectra after heating. Henry-Couannier therefore concluded that it is unlikely that chips are thermitic material.

2) http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/C...cle_Harrit.pdf
French professor of mechanics Jérôme Quirant wrote a detailed review (in French) of the paper of Harrit et al in the year 2010 (? Morea, pls?). He pointed out (among others) that any aluminum nanoparticles in the fine thermites should be round/spherical and not in the form of platelets. He was one of countless critics who noted that measuring DSC under air couldn’t prove thermitic reaction, when the material under study contains a lot of organic/polymeric stuff. He agreed with Sunstealer that Al/Si material in the chips is probably kaolinite. Currently, he added a note about this JREF thread and our “discovery” of Laclede primer as a probable material of chips (a) to (d).

Another critical articles of Jérôme Quirant are here:
3) http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 (in French)
4) http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/alchimie.html

5) http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html
Italian scientist Henrico Manieri wrote another detailed critic of paper of Harrit (et al) already in April 2009. He found numerous errors and misinterpretations in the paper and pointed out that MEK chip containing chromium and zinc should be a particle of Tnemec red primer. He suggested that Si/Al compound in the red chips can be vermiculite (probably not true for chips (a) to (d)).

6) http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/me.../content/about
German mineralogist Gunar Ries wrote another detailed analysis of the Bentham paper in 2010. Among others, he criticized in depth the interpretation of element distribution maps which were used by the authors for the conclusion that aluminum was present in elemental form in the red chips.

Also, clever remarks of dr. Frank Greening mostly on The911Forum should be mentioned, although he did not write any article (?)

(Oystein, I also wrote one article about Bentham paper, it’s here http://kminek.bigbloger.lidovky.cz/c...anotermit.html. But it is written in Czech and it’s not really analysis, just some attempt to summarize the “state of the art” in June 2011 in some way understandable for laymen - in the form of some "story".)

leftysergeant · 9th February 2012, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

5) http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html
Italian scientist Henrico Manieri wrote another detailed critic of paper of Harrit (et al) already in April 2009. He found numerous errors and misinterpretations in the paper and pointed out that MEK chip containing chromium and zinc should be a particle of Tnemec red primer. He suggested that Si/Al compound in the red chips can be vermiculite (probably not true for chips (a) to (d)).

Manieri has done some interesting and insightful work on the topic. It is interseting that he notes that the silicate might be vermiculite. There is, as I recall, talc in the Tnemec pigment. It is chemically similar to vermiculite. It did not seem to me, hower, that there was enough magnesium detected in any of the tests to suggest that vermiculite or talc could make up a significant part of that chip.

Ivan Kminek · 9th February 2012, 04:04 AM

Lefty: I think that Manieri mentioned a foamy heat insulation as a source of vermiculite, but I'm not sure.

For now, one correction of my short list (one of my numerous corrections of myself here, to be honest

):
The article http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 was not written by Jérôme Quirant, but by Prof. Phillipe Gillard.

leftysergeant · 9th February 2012, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

6) http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/me.../content/about
German mineralogist Gunar Ries wrote another detailed analysis of the Bentham paper in 2010. Among others, he criticized in depth the interpretation of element distribution maps which were used by the authors for the conclusion that aluminum was present in elemental form in the red chips.

This is a very insightful article. Ries apparently thinks that the methods that Harrit and company use is sadly lacking in a lot of respects. He also clearly thinks very poorly of Bentham's editorial policies.

He also seems clear that it is hard to excuse any scientist's not seeing a clay mineral (Tonmineral) where the thermite gang sees aluminum-coated platelets. I would probably not make heads or tails out of the technical information on X-ray-driven tests even in English, but one thing struck me as an interesting subject to explore here. Gries raises the question as to how dense a "berylium window" was used in some of the testing, as though this could seriously impact how accurate some of the readings might be.

Could this explain why they did not find a clear indication of strontium chromate in the chips that we think most closely resemble La Clede primer?

moorea34 · 9th February 2012, 04:14 AM

I see that you follow my productions Yvan

The article you cited ( http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 ) has been written by two french scientist (and not me), experts in energetic materials and explosifs. Their conclusion is that Harrit's paper is very, very bad science...

Recently, I wrote also this article inspired by your excelent work : http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1810

Ivan Kminek · 9th February 2012, 04:29 AM

Thanks, Morea, your important "production" can't be overlooked

. Oystein should know/quote for sure your newest article which is based on our findings here. Do you plan to translate it into English? Google translation is basically readable, but...

Lefty: frankly, I have no time to study the article of Gunar Ries now and those highly technical and specialized topics are anyway rather "over my head". But, someone else (Almond, Sunstealer and Oystein) might comment it (if it hasn't been discussed somewhere here on JREF earlier, which is probable). But, concerning strontium chromate, I understood from Almond's posts that there are some "pathological overlaps" of XEDS signals in such a mixture (Laclede paint) in any experimental arrangement (?).
Here I just add the better working link to the article written by G. Ries.

Sunstealer · 9th February 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Thanks, Morea, your important "production" can't be overlooked

. Oystein should know/quote for sure your newest article which is based on our findings here. Do you plan to translate it into English? Google translation is basically readable, but...

Lefty: frankly, I have no time to study the article of Gunar Ries now and those highly technical and specialized topics are anyway rather "over my head". But, someone else (Almond, Sunstealer and Oystein) might comment it (if it hasn't been discussed somewhere here on JREF earlier, which is probable). But, concerning strontium chromate, I understood from Almond's posts that there are some "pathological overlaps" of XEDS signals in such a mixture (Laclede paint) in any experimental arrangement (?).
Here I just add the better working link to the article written by G. Ries.

I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper.

He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual.

Ivan Kminek · 9th February 2012, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper.

He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual.

This analysis of dr. Ries was already "hand-waved" by Harrit himself here (and Oystein has a link to this response in his blog).

Oystein · 9th February 2012, 08:08 AM

Thanks for your references so far!

I want to include several of the better ones in lieu of explaining why we think that Harrit e.al.'s conclusions are invalid. I will certainly reference Quirant and Manieri [ETA]as well as Denis Rancourt[/ETA]. Not sure if Ries is such a good reference, with him rambling on so much about beryllium windows that no one used.

I have Gunnar Ries on my Facebook friends list, but haven't really talked to him much. His article was indeed valuable for me to understand some of the basics of electron- and x-ray spectroscopy, however he does get a couple or so things wrong. Harrit is definitely correct in some his rebuttal of some of Ries's statements, most notably the ability of the XEDS detector to show peaks under 1 keV. Also, Ries is as confused as is Harrit about which chips are the same or different materials. I am fairly certain that there is no kaolinite in Tnemec, as it doesn't (iirc) contain aluminium silicates / clay, so any speculation about Al-Si sheets swelling in MEK is meaningless - they treated a Tnemec chip with MEK, not one with Kaolinte.

By the way, I am in personal contact with Frank Greening, he will be one of the people to review my paper draft. Which reminds me: Ivan, lefty, Moorea, Sunstealer, you may have given me your email address in the past, I am not sure. I wasn't always the most organized in the last 4 months. If you would like to review my draft, which I really want to conclude next week, could you PM me your addy?
Can you recommend someone competent, maybe from "the other side" even, who might be interested to have a look and can be trusted to treat it fairly?
@ Chris Mohr, could I have your also, and have you relay it to Jim Milette - not necessarily for review, but to keep him informed? Also, if you could please alert him to my finding of needle-shaped crystals in the red layer, about 1µm long, that apparently contain elements heavier than Al and Si, but not Fe, that I suspect to be Strontium Chromate - see my long post yesterday? It would be so cool and swell if he could quickly focus his magic beams on any of these if he sees them too and see if theres a good signal for both Sr and Cr and maybe even the correct chemical bindings to O... If we find that, I think that would clinch the LaClede theory.

Ivan Kminek · 9th February 2012, 08:48 AM

Oystein: thank you for your remarks, namely about the critic written by Gunnar Ries (e.g. some mismatch of red chips). But he simply knew less (among others) than we know now.

I'll send you my e-mail again and of course I'd like to "review" this "white paper". At least, I will carefully read it

Concerning other reviewers, I personally think that dr. Greening and some people from here on JREF could be enough (?).

One note: I think that we have here some kind of "gentlemen agreement" that we should not "interfere" with the work of Jim Millette - at least now, before the release of some results. He can receive a copy of your (our JREF) document, but I think that he should not read it. And we should not push him now to prove some elements or compounds (strontium chromate) somewhere, although it is important for us.

Later on (if he really finds some chips corresponding to Laclede paint), his help with the detection of strontium chromate we are expecting in some "fine assortment of red chips" would be indeed great

(But, this is just my current opinion and the real development of "our paint matter" can be different. Perhaps Jim Millette has already found some strontium chromate needles somewhere; or perhaps he has found something surprising even for us).

Oystein · 9th February 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Oystein: thank you for your remarks, namely about the critic written by Gunnar Ries. But he simply knew less (among others) than we know now.

Gunnar certainly wrote a qualified critique at the time, but it isn't necessary at this point and possibly a distraction.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

I'll send you my e-mail again and of course I'd like to "review" this "white paper". At least, I will carefully read it

Concerning other reviewers, I personally think that dr. Greening and some people from here on JREF could be enough (?).

Thanks

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

One note: I think that we have here some kind of "gentlemen agreement" that we should not "interfere" with the work of Jim Millette - at least now, before the release of some results. He can receive a copy of your (our JREF) document, but I think that he should not read it.

Maybe I got carried away with my new excitement about these "needles", and maybe he would find and identify them even without being told, which would be great. Then again, he already is aware of, and (as I understand it) shares, our special interest in a-d-like chips, so looking at them with a theory that readily provides falsifiable predictions ("verily, verily, I sayeth onto ye, there shall be needles in the matrix, and lo and behold, the keen eyes of the beast shall detect strontium, and the bonds of chromate shall reign within!") isn't the worst of ideas.

About the last quoted sentence: I remember that Chris asked me if I could write up the LaClede theory because Jim wanted to read it before doing the study

Oystein · 9th February 2012, 10:49 AM

Ah cool, Harrit's reply to Ries contains a quote I had been looking for:
http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.p...c=news&id=5252

Originally Posted by Harrit

There is no doubt that the iron mineral is hematite, but we didn’t know for sure at the time of writing the paper. Later, we have obtained TEM diffraction evidence for the identity of the iron mineral, but in my opinion, this result alone does not merit a new publication.

The quote I had been looking for was the first sentence, that Harrit agrees we have hematite.

The second sentence is even more very intersting: Apparently, Harrit e.al. have done TEM diffraction after publication (april 2009) - did they ever publish any results??

Africanus · 9th February 2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Ah cool, Harrit's reply to Ries contains a quote I had been looking for:
http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.p...c=news&id=5252

The quote I had been looking for was the first sentence, that Harrit agrees we have hematite.

The second sentence is even more very intersting: Apparently, Harrit e.al. have done TEM diffraction after publication (april 2009) - did they ever publish any results??

It doesn't cast a positive light on Harrit and his coworkers. They publish a paper although they haven't identified the crucial material.

ETA: According the Beryllium window: I think you miss the point of Ries critic, Oystein. He criticizes that the experimental setup is not specified in detail.

Oystein · 9th February 2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Africanus

It doesn't cast a positive light on Harrit and his coworkers. They publish a paper although they haven't identified the crucial material.

Absolutely. We know that these fine nine scientists who feature as authors of this gem had been working on those chips for over a year, and among them nobody identified the second most mundane (after silica) mineral on the planet, despite having its two main elements on the table. That's abysmally incompetent. To this date I have not seen any one of them admit that the other common crystal there is clay.

Originally Posted by Africanus

ETA: According the Beryllium window: I think you miss the point of Ries critic, Oystein. He criticizes that the experimental setup is not specified in detail.

Oh, the paper is full to the brim with such omissions.

(I wouldn't mind a nomination for the language compepithom for this one

)

It would do if he just said it once. But Ries assumes, falsely, that a Beryllium window was in the way and goes on to toss out half of the data, when maybe scribbling a question mark on the margin and otherwise assuming good faith would have been more prudent. As it turns out, Gunnar was just wrong.

alienentity · 9th February 2012, 04:41 PM

Note to Chris Mohr: I PM'd you just now. Thanks for offering to send your opera to me!

/OT

alienentity · 9th February 2012, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper.

He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual.

For those who haven't done it already here is a translated page:

Oystein · 9th February 2012, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by moorea34

I see that you follow my productions Yvan

The article you cited ( http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 ) has been written by two french scientist (and not me), experts in energetic materials and explosifs. Their conclusion is that Harrit's paper is very, very bad science...

Excellent, thanks!
I had it translated by Google and really learned a few things, particularly that bit about how a DSC controls temperature and that the DSC graphs produced by Harrit e.al. don't allow the conlcusion that any temperature above 700°C was reached troughout the experiment. So any iron-rich sphere must have been created under 700°C
http://translate.google.de/translate...%3Farticle1698

atavisms · 10th February 2012, 12:11 AM

paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.

beachnut · 10th February 2012, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by atavisms

paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres. ...

...

The dust Jones burned puffed up and did not match the energy in Thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat energy of Thermite. Paper beats thermite. Wood and plastic have more heat energy. Why would you use thermite to weaken steel when the office fires can do it? Why are you so gullible? Did you read the paper?

The fires in the WTC towers were equal in heat energy to more than 2,500 tons of thermite in each tower. You picked losers, and you can't figure out 911.

Why can't you see the errors in Jones' paper? Did you take chemistry? Physics? math?

Why bring up Hitler, he is the biggest loser, and 911 truth is the biggest liar. You believe the big lies of 911 truth.

cjnewson88 · 10th February 2012, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by atavisms

paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.

The fail is strong in this one.

I suggest Atavisms you go back to Page 1, begin reading, until you reach this post, then try again.

Oh, and stay on topic.

Ivan Kminek · 10th February 2012, 12:51 AM

Atavism, you are mostly off topic and your posts will be therefore deleted by Oystein (and this my post will be deleted as well).
Before Oystein will do it, just shortly for your sentence: "what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips?"
We think that these red-gray chips are particles of red primer paints attached to the rusted steel, since such paints were for sure used in WTC. This is in fact one of the most obvious presumptions in the history of criminalistics. And since chips described in Bentham paper look like paint chips and have a composition typical for paint chips (moreover the composition of some of them show almost perfect match with compositions of two WTC red primers), we therefore think that they are indeed paint chips

If you don't have anything factual and on topic, try your luck elsewhere, pls.

leftysergeant · 10th February 2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by atavisms

paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html

That they were only partially-ignited argues against their being thermite.

Quote:

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips?

The fact that they look exactly like paint chips and are made of exactly the same things of which paint is made.

Quote:

(even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources.

No it isn't. As for dork boy Harrit's performing his tests in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, he has just proven that the chips act in the same way that paint does. Hit a paint chip with a welding torch and it goes "poof!"

Quote:

The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.

No. There is no evidence of explosives and no damage consistant with thermite charges on any of the steel. There is no evidence of a cover-up. The only reason anybody has to suspect a cover-up is that some dimwits are too stupid to admit that they do not grasp basic fire science, or they take the word of a lying sack of Nazi crap like Chris Bollyn that there were big pools of melted steel in the basements of the buildings.

Quote:

The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.

Hog snot. You are lecturing chemists, engineers and veteran fire fighters, some of whom (like myself) have actually made and dem,onstrated the use of thermite in arson and demolitions. It is fools who believe a lying scumbag like Bollyn or Hufschmid or failed scientists like Jeff King or Jones or Harrit who are spouting crap.

Quote:

Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.

His modern-day accolytes have applied his lessons well in promulgating Da Twoof.

Ivan Kminek · 12th February 2012, 12:45 AM

Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author.

Here is another fresh article.

ozeco41 · 12th February 2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author.

From what I understand it is not within the scope of the Millette work to prove that "Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11". I thought the scope was to identify if thermite components or residues were in dust samples.

That said I read the linked paper before my irritation level rose too far....

...when will these idiots ever learn rational thinking and logical reasoning skills?

The usual problem for every thousand words of lies it takes about 3 thousand to slam dunk rebut the dishonesties. I cannot be bothered wasting the energy - back in 2007-8 if someone came to the forum I frequented making those claims OR making genuine sceptical enquiries I would have written them some explanations. But this is 2012. Few if any genuine sceptics left. Lots of trolls, no genuine truthers I can identify posting on this forum. I'm sure some members will write some rebuttals - good for them. Not for me.

EDIT: PS (You added the second link Ivan)

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

...Here is another fresh article.

The second paper is even sillier. But it shows real fear of truth and a preparatory wave of well poisoning.... So be it.

If we keep the perspective and context the whole of the thermXte debate is a trolls red herring. Even if there was tonnes of thermXte on ground zero there is not and never has been a coherent reasoned claim supporting any form of CD. Put it in pseudo percentage terms but thermXte is only one link in the chain needed to prove CD and it is no more than (say) 5% of the chain. And the truthers have burden of proof for the remaining 95%. At this stage 2012 they have never put forward anything more than a few isolated bits of technical claims. No coherent supportable case for CD. My advice to them is forget thermXte - try the other 95% of the claim. If you get that 95% then some of us, me included, will start to treat you as serious. With or without thermXte.

cjnewson88 · 12th February 2012, 01:14 AM

hmmm

Quote:

*after talking about NORAD response/non-demolition evidence re. 911*
This evidence strains the incompetence excuse beyond it's breaking point and needs to be properly investigated irrespective of the demolition evidence and any debunking of the original nano-thermite study.

So.. At the end of it all, Jim's results wont matter because they know 9/11 was an inside job??

ozeco41 · 12th February 2012, 01:17 AM

They also forget that Jones walked away from his thermXte claims.

So it is back to "Don't confuse me with evidence and reasoning --- my mind is made up!"

Africanus · 12th February 2012, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author.

To cut a long story short, I quote the quintessence of the article:

Quote:

If all of this is done and the original study is effectively debunked then the question remains, "What does this mean for the truth movement?" The answer is nothing.

ozeco41 · 12th February 2012, 01:29 AM

And that statement is true...

....but for the diametrical opposite reason to what the author intended.

Oystein · 12th February 2012, 01:50 AM

Thanks, gusy, for the summaries. Yep, I did read the articles, but didn't plan on a rebuttal. The guy simply lying. The title of the second linked post is a lie, and the first contains severel. By way of example, it presents Discussion pieces at the JEM as "peer-reviewed articles", which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ("discussions" about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review).

The author commits several logical and methodological mistakes about scientific discourse that are a bit harder to spot or would require a few sentences to explain, but I won't bother. We see the same taktics as ever: hand-waving, moving goal-posts, Gish-gallopping and plain lying.

leftysergeant · 12th February 2012, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?"

So I started reading that article. Then I came to the first embedded video. On the screen shot which appears there is a statement that it is unsusual to find Al, Si and O in -40 micron platelettes in ordinary paint.

I can only assume that we are dealing with an ignorant schmuck who talks through his trousers.

Sunstealer · 12th February 2012, 05:44 AM

Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing.

Quote:

I eagerly await the results of Dr Millette's tests. In fact, I want more independent scientists to look at the red/gray chips. I probably won't trust Dr Millette's tests alone if they fail to replicate the results of Harrit et al, because there's always the possibility that he could be engaging in a deception. However, if we had like 10 different teams of scientists all testing red/gray chips from different dust samples and they all failed to replicate the findings of the original paper, then I would concede to the debunkers.

Says it all.

Pathetic.

DGM · 12th February 2012, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing.

Says it all.

Pathetic.

Especially considering all that's needed to debunk their paper is to have someone that's competent read it.

leftysergeant · 12th February 2012, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing.

I have long given up on convincing most of the tin-foil brigade that they have been conned, or that they missed some important facts in high school science classes.

I would be happy just to have some good science to show the people who have been exposed to, but not yet bought into the crappola that there were no "thermite residues" in the dust.

I shall be sure, once Dr Millettes work is finished, to send a copy to radio hosts like Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes. At least once a week, I seem to hear some lunatic calling them and mentioning that thermite chips were found at GZ. They seem unconvinced, but do not know enough to counter the whackadoodles.

I guess the study can at least be a public benefit in that regard.

OCaptain · 12th February 2012, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by ozeco41

And that statement is true...

....but for the diametrical opposite reason to what the author intended.

And this is also the reason taxpayer money must not be spent to humor these bozos with a new investigation. It will end up having as much meaning as the forthcoming Millette paper.

Miragememories · 12th February 2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by OCaptain

And this is also the reason taxpayer money must not be spent to humor these bozos with a new investigation. It will end up having as much meaning as the forthcoming Millette paper.

More attempted "well poisoning".

MM

Miragememories · 12th February 2012, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by atavisms

paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.

The BIG LIE is much more palatable than the truth.

MM

Miragememories · 12th February 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

"The dust Jones burned puffed up and did not match the energy in Thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat energy of Thermite. Paper beats thermite. Wood and plastic have more heat energy. Why would you use thermite to weaken steel when the office fires can do it? Why are you so gullible? Did you read the paper?..."

Hmm.

I have never seen paper get hot enough to melt steel?

I have never seen jet fuel burn hot enough to melt steel?

I have never seen plastics burn hot enough to melt steel?

You should consider the 'rate that the energy is released', rather than the total amount of energy released.

MM

OCaptain · 12th February 2012, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

More attempted "well poisoning".

MM

Wait a minute, guy (and by the way, I've thought for months now that your avatar looks like a Jason hockey mask, and I feel better now that I've got that out of me), the article calling into question any possible outcome negative to the Truther position in the Millette paper is textbook example poisoning the well.

Try again.

8th February 2012, 10:49 AM	#1761
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Oystein A request for help @ The Almond: 1. Could you describe the method / algorithm / assumptions / whatever it takes that you use to do your MC-Sims of XEDS graphs, such that I could copy&paste it into a paper as a footnote or similar? 2. Could you run another XEDS MC-sim for a bulk of A242-steel that has the following composition: Fe: 71.7% O: 27.3% Mn: 0.58% Cu: 0.22% C: 0.15% Cr: 0.07% This would be oxidized steel with on average the iron oxidation state being Fe₃O₄, and 0.8% Manganese etc in the original steel that get diluted by the extra O. If I assume Fe₂O₃ all the way through, these percentages wouldn't change significantly for my purposes. I want to check the relative pealk heights of Fe:O, and see if Mn has a chance to rise above noise, Cu and Cr to disappear in noise. The big question mark I have is on Carbon. Figure 6 in Harrit e.al. has small C-peaks, but they appear larger than I would think with C being only a small trace in the steel. But perhaps these lighter elements get real excited? @ All: I'd love for you to find links and perhaps abstracts or conclusions of essays, papers, blog entries on the web that reviewed Harrit e.al. and found that there was paint, not thermite. Thanks! Did you send him a PM?
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

9th February 2012, 01:14 AM	#1763
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Originally Posted by Oystein @ All: I'd love for you to find links and perhaps abstracts or conclusions of essays, papers, blog entries on the web that reviewed Harrit e.al. and found that there was paint, not thermite. Thanks! Oystein, here is some list of the relevant articles I remember (but you know them as well). My "abstracts" (written basically according to my poor memory) are of course very incomplete and perhaps even misleading in some cases; I have no time to read these articles again now. But you have at least url addresses of these documents here in one place 1) http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf French physicist and a member of truthers community Frédéric Henry-Couannier analyzed red-gray chips separated with magnet from the WTC dust in the year 2010 (?) using SEM microscopy and XEDS spectroscopy. He found chips with similar composition and look as chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper. He, however, did not find any round shiny iron rich particles in the chips heated up to 900 °C under air. Chips remained red and only carbon was missing in their XEDS spectra after heating. Henry-Couannier therefore concluded that it is unlikely that chips are thermitic material. 2) http://www.bastison.net/RESSOURCES/C...cle_Harrit.pdf French professor of mechanics Jérôme Quirant wrote a detailed review (in French) of the paper of Harrit et al in the year 2010 (? Morea, pls?). He pointed out (among others) that any aluminum nanoparticles in the fine thermites should be round/spherical and not in the form of platelets. He was one of countless critics who noted that measuring DSC under air couldn’t prove thermitic reaction, when the material under study contains a lot of organic/polymeric stuff. He agreed with Sunstealer that Al/Si material in the chips is probably kaolinite. Currently, he added a note about this JREF thread and our “discovery” of Laclede primer as a probable material of chips (a) to (d). Another critical articles of Jérôme Quirant are here: 3) http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 (in French) 4) http://www.bastison.net/ALCHIMIE/alchimie.html 5) http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html Italian scientist Henrico Manieri wrote another detailed critic of paper of Harrit (et al) already in April 2009. He found numerous errors and misinterpretations in the paper and pointed out that MEK chip containing chromium and zinc should be a particle of Tnemec red primer. He suggested that Si/Al compound in the red chips can be vermiculite (probably not true for chips (a) to (d)). 6) http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/me.../content/about German mineralogist Gunar Ries wrote another detailed analysis of the Bentham paper in 2010. Among others, he criticized in depth the interpretation of element distribution maps which were used by the authors for the conclusion that aluminum was present in elemental form in the red chips. Also, clever remarks of dr. Frank Greening mostly on The911Forum should be mentioned, although he did not write any article (?) (Oystein, I also wrote one article about Bentham paper, it’s here http://kminek.bigbloger.lidovky.cz/c...anotermit.html. But it is written in Czech and it’s not really analysis, just some attempt to summarize the “state of the art” in June 2011 in some way understandable for laymen - in the form of some "story".)
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 9th February 2012 at 01:27 AM.

9th February 2012, 02:31 AM	#1764
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek 5) http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...laimed-in.html Italian scientist Henrico Manieri wrote another detailed critic of paper of Harrit (et al) already in April 2009. He found numerous errors and misinterpretations in the paper and pointed out that MEK chip containing chromium and zinc should be a particle of Tnemec red primer. He suggested that Si/Al compound in the red chips can be vermiculite (probably not true for chips (a) to (d)). Manieri has done some interesting and insightful work on the topic. It is interseting that he notes that the silicate might be vermiculite. There is, as I recall, talc in the Tnemec pigment. It is chemically similar to vermiculite. It did not seem to me, hower, that there was enough magnesium detected in any of the tests to suggest that vermiculite or talc could make up a significant part of that chip.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

9th February 2012, 04:04 AM	#1765
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Lefty: I think that Manieri mentioned a foamy heat insulation as a source of vermiculite, but I'm not sure. For now, one correction of my short list (one of my numerous corrections of myself here, to be honest): The article http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 was not written by Jérôme Quirant, but by Prof. Phillipe Gillard.
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906

9th February 2012, 04:09 AM	#1766
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek 6) http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/me.../content/about German mineralogist Gunar Ries wrote another detailed analysis of the Bentham paper in 2010. Among others, he criticized in depth the interpretation of element distribution maps which were used by the authors for the conclusion that aluminum was present in elemental form in the red chips. This is a very insightful article. Ries apparently thinks that the methods that Harrit and company use is sadly lacking in a lot of respects. He also clearly thinks very poorly of Bentham's editorial policies. He also seems clear that it is hard to excuse any scientist's not seeing a clay mineral (Tonmineral) where the thermite gang sees aluminum-coated platelets. I would probably not make heads or tails out of the technical information on X-ray-driven tests even in English, but one thing struck me as an interesting subject to explore here. Gries raises the question as to how dense a "berylium window" was used in some of the testing, as though this could seriously impact how accurate some of the readings might be. Could this explain why they did not find a clear indication of strontium chromate in the chips that we think most closely resemble La Clede primer?
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

8th February 2012, 11:04 AM	#1762
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Originally Posted by DGM Did you send him a PM? I just did, but only after prepared dinner, which is cooking now ^^

9th February 2012, 04:14 AM	#1767
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 157	I see that you follow my productions Yvan The article you cited ( http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 ) has been written by two french scientist (and not me), experts in energetic materials and explosifs. Their conclusion is that Harrit's paper is very, very bad science... Recently, I wrote also this article inspired by your excelent work : http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1810
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 157	Last edited by moorea34; 9th February 2012 at 04:18 AM.

9th February 2012, 04:29 AM	#1768
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Thanks, Morea, your important "production" can't be overlooked. Oystein should know/quote for sure your newest article which is based on our findings here. Do you plan to translate it into English? Google translation is basically readable, but... Lefty: frankly, I have no time to study the article of Gunar Ries now and those highly technical and specialized topics are anyway rather "over my head". But, someone else (Almond, Sunstealer and Oystein) might comment it (if it hasn't been discussed somewhere here on JREF earlier, which is probable). But, concerning strontium chromate, I understood from Almond's posts that there are some "pathological overlaps" of XEDS signals in such a mixture (Laclede paint) in any experimental arrangement (?). Here I just add the better working link to the article written by G. Ries.
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 9th February 2012 at 04:52 AM.

9th February 2012, 06:21 AM	#1769
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek Thanks, Morea, your important "production" can't be overlooked. Oystein should know/quote for sure your newest article which is based on our findings here. Do you plan to translate it into English? Google translation is basically readable, but... Lefty: frankly, I have no time to study the article of Gunar Ries now and those highly technical and specialized topics are anyway rather "over my head". But, someone else (Almond, Sunstealer and Oystein) might comment it (if it hasn't been discussed somewhere here on JREF earlier, which is probable). But, concerning strontium chromate, I understood from Almond's posts that there are some "pathological overlaps" of XEDS signals in such a mixture (Laclede paint) in any experimental arrangement (?). Here I just add the better working link to the article written by G. Ries. I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper. He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual.
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper.

9th February 2012, 06:46 AM	#1770
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Originally Posted by Sunstealer I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper. He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual. This analysis of dr. Ries was already "hand-waved" by Harrit himself here (and Oystein has a link to this response in his blog).
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906

9th February 2012, 08:08 AM	#1771
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Thanks for your references so far! I want to include several of the better ones in lieu of explaining why we think that Harrit e.al.'s conclusions are invalid. I will certainly reference Quirant and Manieri [ETA]as well as Denis Rancourt[/ETA]. Not sure if Ries is such a good reference, with him rambling on so much about beryllium windows that no one used. I have Gunnar Ries on my Facebook friends list, but haven't really talked to him much. His article was indeed valuable for me to understand some of the basics of electron- and x-ray spectroscopy, however he does get a couple or so things wrong. Harrit is definitely correct in some his rebuttal of some of Ries's statements, most notably the ability of the XEDS detector to show peaks under 1 keV. Also, Ries is as confused as is Harrit about which chips are the same or different materials. I am fairly certain that there is no kaolinite in Tnemec, as it doesn't (iirc) contain aluminium silicates / clay, so any speculation about Al-Si sheets swelling in MEK is meaningless - they treated a Tnemec chip with MEK, not one with Kaolinte. By the way, I am in personal contact with Frank Greening, he will be one of the people to review my paper draft. Which reminds me: Ivan, lefty, Moorea, Sunstealer, you may have given me your email address in the past, I am not sure. I wasn't always the most organized in the last 4 months. If you would like to review my draft, which I really want to conclude next week, could you PM me your addy? Can you recommend someone competent, maybe from "the other side" even, who might be interested to have a look and can be trusted to treat it fairly? @ Chris Mohr, could I have your also, and have you relay it to Jim Milette - not necessarily for review, but to keep him informed? Also, if you could please alert him to my finding of needle-shaped crystals in the red layer, about 1µm long, that apparently contain elements heavier than Al and Si, but not Fe, that I suspect to be Strontium Chromate - see my long post yesterday? It would be so cool and swell if he could quickly focus his magic beams on any of these if he sees them too and see if theres a good signal for both Sr and Cr and maybe even the correct chemical bindings to O... If we find that, I think that would clinch the LaClede theory.
	Last edited by Oystein; 9th February 2012 at 08:16 AM. Reason: ETA as tagged

9th February 2012, 08:48 AM	#1772
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Oystein: thank you for your remarks, namely about the critic written by Gunnar Ries (e.g. some mismatch of red chips). But he simply knew less (among others) than we know now. I'll send you my e-mail again and of course I'd like to "review" this "white paper". At least, I will carefully read it Concerning other reviewers, I personally think that dr. Greening and some people from here on JREF could be enough (?). One note: I think that we have here some kind of "gentlemen agreement" that we should not "interfere" with the work of Jim Millette - at least now, before the release of some results. He can receive a copy of your (our JREF) document, but I think that he should not read it. And we should not push him now to prove some elements or compounds (strontium chromate) somewhere, although it is important for us. Later on (if he really finds some chips corresponding to Laclede paint), his help with the detection of strontium chromate we are expecting in some "fine assortment of red chips" would be indeed great (But, this is just my current opinion and the real development of "our paint matter" can be different. Perhaps Jim Millette has already found some strontium chromate needles somewhere; or perhaps he has found something surprising even for us).
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 9th February 2012 at 09:48 AM.

9th February 2012, 10:25 AM	#1773
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek Oystein: thank you for your remarks, namely about the critic written by Gunnar Ries. But he simply knew less (among others) than we know now. Gunnar certainly wrote a qualified critique at the time, but it isn't necessary at this point and possibly a distraction. Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek I'll send you my e-mail again and of course I'd like to "review" this "white paper". At least, I will carefully read it Concerning other reviewers, I personally think that dr. Greening and some people from here on JREF could be enough (?). Thanks Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek One note: I think that we have here some kind of "gentlemen agreement" that we should not "interfere" with the work of Jim Millette - at least now, before the release of some results. He can receive a copy of your (our JREF) document, but I think that he should not read it. Maybe I got carried away with my new excitement about these "needles", and maybe he would find and identify them even without being told, which would be great. Then again, he already is aware of, and (as I understand it) shares, our special interest in a-d-like chips, so looking at them with a theory that readily provides falsifiable predictions ("verily, verily, I sayeth onto ye, there shall be needles in the matrix, and lo and behold, the keen eyes of the beast shall detect strontium, and the bonds of chromate shall reign within!") isn't the worst of ideas. About the last quoted sentence: I remember that Chris asked me if I could write up the LaClede theory because Jim wanted to read it before doing the study

9th February 2012, 10:49 AM	#1774
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Ah cool, Harrit's reply to Ries contains a quote I had been looking for: http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.p...c=news&id=5252 Originally Posted by Harrit There is no doubt that the iron mineral is hematite, but we didn’t know for sure at the time of writing the paper. Later, we have obtained TEM diffraction evidence for the identity of the iron mineral, but in my opinion, this result alone does not merit a new publication. The quote I had been looking for was the first sentence, that Harrit agrees we have hematite. The second sentence is even more very intersting: Apparently, Harrit e.al. have done TEM diffraction after publication (april 2009) - did they ever publish any results??

9th February 2012, 12:40 PM	#1775
Africanus Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Oystein Ah cool, Harrit's reply to Ries contains a quote I had been looking for: http://mysteries-magazin.com/index.p...c=news&id=5252 The quote I had been looking for was the first sentence, that Harrit agrees we have hematite. The second sentence is even more very intersting: Apparently, Harrit e.al. have done TEM diffraction after publication (april 2009) - did they ever publish any results?? It doesn't cast a positive light on Harrit and his coworkers. They publish a paper although they haven't identified the crucial material. ETA: According the Beryllium window: I think you miss the point of Ries critic, Oystein. He criticizes that the experimental setup is not specified in detail.
	Last edited by Africanus; 9th February 2012 at 12:44 PM.

9th February 2012, 12:53 PM	#1776
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Originally Posted by Africanus It doesn't cast a positive light on Harrit and his coworkers. They publish a paper although they haven't identified the crucial material. Absolutely. We know that these fine nine scientists who feature as authors of this gem had been working on those chips for over a year, and among them nobody identified the second most mundane (after silica) mineral on the planet, despite having its two main elements on the table. That's abysmally incompetent. To this date I have not seen any one of them admit that the other common crystal there is clay. Originally Posted by Africanus ETA: According the Beryllium window: I think you miss the point of Ries critic, Oystein. He criticizes that the experimental setup is not specified in detail. Oh, the paper is full to the brim with such omissions. (I wouldn't mind a nomination for the language compepithom for this one ) It would do if he just said it once. But Ries assumes, falsely, that a Beryllium window was in the way and goes on to toss out half of the data, when maybe scribbling a question mark on the margin and otherwise assuming good faith would have been more prudent. As it turns out, Gunnar was just wrong.
	Last edited by Oystein; 9th February 2012 at 01:00 PM.

9th February 2012, 04:41 PM	#1777
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,325	Note to Chris Mohr: I PM'd you just now. Thanks for offering to send your opera to me! /OT
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,325	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

9th February 2012, 04:47 PM	#1778
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,325	Originally Posted by Sunstealer I had a brief look using google translate. It only translated half the article. From what I read Ries says that the data indicates aluminosilicates are present. He questions a lot of the methodology used by Harrit et al. He also interestingly says that soaking clay minerals in MEK will cause the effect seen in the paper. He is a mineralogist who works at an analysing company so I think he knows what he's on about. I expect his analysis of the paper will be hand-waved away by truthers as usual. For those who haven't done it already here is a translated page:
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 4,325	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

9th February 2012, 05:49 PM	#1779
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Originally Posted by moorea34 I see that you follow my productions Yvan The article you cited ( http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1698 ) has been written by two french scientist (and not me), experts in energetic materials and explosifs. Their conclusion is that Harrit's paper is very, very bad science... Excellent, thanks! I had it translated by Google and really learned a few things, particularly that bit about how a DSC controls temperature and that the DSC graphs produced by Harrit e.al. don't allow the conlcusion that any temperature above 700°C was reached troughout the experiment. So any iron-rich sphere must have been created under 700°C http://translate.google.de/translate...%3Farticle1698

10th February 2012, 12:11 AM	#1780
atavisms Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 315	paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well. They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber. the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST. The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true. Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.
atavisms Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 315	__________________ “Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated” -Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute http://smu.gs/jvzZxu Last edited by atavisms; 10th February 2012 at 12:12 AM.

10th February 2012, 12:17 AM	#1781
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,110	Originally Posted by atavisms paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres. ... Originally Posted by atavisms paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well. They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber. the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST. The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true. Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide. ... The dust Jones burned puffed up and did not match the energy in Thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat energy of Thermite. Paper beats thermite. Wood and plastic have more heat energy. Why would you use thermite to weaken steel when the office fires can do it? Why are you so gullible? Did you read the paper? The fires in the WTC towers were equal in heat energy to more than 2,500 tons of thermite in each tower. You picked losers, and you can't figure out 911. Why can't you see the errors in Jones' paper? Did you take chemistry? Physics? math? Why bring up Hitler, he is the biggest loser, and 911 truth is the biggest liar. You believe the big lies of 911 truth.
	Last edited by beachnut; 10th February 2012 at 12:22 AM.

10th February 2012, 12:31 AM	#1782
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 1,741	Originally Posted by atavisms paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well. They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber. the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST. The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true. Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide. The fail is strong in this one. I suggest Atavisms you go back to Page 1, begin reading, until you reach this post, then try again. Oh, and stay on topic.
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

10th February 2012, 12:51 AM	#1783
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Atavism, you are mostly off topic and your posts will be therefore deleted by Oystein (and this my post will be deleted as well). Before Oystein will do it, just shortly for your sentence: "what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips?" We think that these red-gray chips are particles of red primer paints attached to the rusted steel, since such paints were for sure used in WTC. This is in fact one of the most obvious presumptions in the history of criminalistics. And since chips described in Bentham paper look like paint chips and have a composition typical for paint chips (moreover the composition of some of them show almost perfect match with compositions of two WTC red primers), we therefore think that they are indeed paint chips If you don't have anything factual and on topic, try your luck elsewhere, pls.
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 10th February 2012 at 12:59 AM.

10th February 2012, 05:21 AM	#1784
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by atavisms paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well. They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html That they were only partially-ignited argues against their being thermite. Quote: what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? The fact that they look exactly like paint chips and are made of exactly the same things of which paint is made. Quote: (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber. the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. No it isn't. As for dork boy Harrit's performing his tests in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, he has just proven that the chips act in the same way that paint does. Hit a paint chip with a welding torch and it goes "poof!" Quote: The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST. No. There is no evidence of explosives and no damage consistant with thermite charges on any of the steel. There is no evidence of a cover-up. The only reason anybody has to suspect a cover-up is that some dimwits are too stupid to admit that they do not grasp basic fire science, or they take the word of a lying sack of Nazi crap like Chris Bollyn that there were big pools of melted steel in the basements of the buildings. Quote: The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true. Hog snot. You are lecturing chemists, engineers and veteran fire fighters, some of whom (like myself) have actually made and dem,onstrated the use of thermite in arson and demolitions. It is fools who believe a lying scumbag like Bollyn or Hufschmid or failed scientists like Jeff King or Jones or Harrit who are spouting crap. Quote: Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide. His modern-day accolytes have applied his lessons well in promulgating Da Twoof.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

12th February 2012, 12:45 AM	#1785
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author. Here is another fresh article.
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 906	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 12th February 2012 at 01:02 AM.

12th February 2012, 01:03 AM	#1786
ozeco41 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 7,613	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author. From what I understand it is not within the scope of the Millette work to prove that "Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11". I thought the scope was to identify if thermite components or residues were in dust samples. That said I read the linked paper before my irritation level rose too far.... ...when will these idiots ever learn rational thinking and logical reasoning skills? The usual problem for every thousand words of lies it takes about 3 thousand to slam dunk rebut the dishonesties. I cannot be bothered wasting the energy - back in 2007-8 if someone came to the forum I frequented making those claims OR making genuine sceptical enquiries I would have written them some explanations. But this is 2012. Few if any genuine sceptics left. Lots of trolls, no genuine truthers I can identify posting on this forum. I'm sure some members will write some rebuttals - good for them. Not for me. EDIT: PS (You added the second link Ivan) Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek ...Here is another fresh article. The second paper is even sillier. But it shows real fear of truth and a preparatory wave of well poisoning.... So be it. If we keep the perspective and context the whole of the thermXte debate is a trolls red herring. Even if there was tonnes of thermXte on ground zero there is not and never has been a coherent reasoned claim supporting any form of CD. Put it in pseudo percentage terms but thermXte is only one link in the chain needed to prove CD and it is no more than (say) 5% of the chain. And the truthers have burden of proof for the remaining 95%. At this stage 2012 they have never put forward anything more than a few isolated bits of technical claims. No coherent supportable case for CD. My advice to them is forget thermXte - try the other 95% of the claim. If you get that 95% then some of us, me included, will start to treat you as serious. With or without thermXte.
	Last edited by ozeco41; 12th February 2012 at 01:20 AM.

12th February 2012, 01:14 AM	#1787
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 1,741	hmmm Quote: after talking about NORAD response/non-demolition evidence re. 911 This evidence strains the incompetence excuse beyond it's breaking point and needs to be properly investigated irrespective of the demolition evidence and *any debunking of the original nano-thermite study.* So.. At the end of it all, Jim's results wont matter because they know 9/11 was an inside job??
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88 Last edited by cjnewson88; 12th February 2012 at 01:15 AM.

12th February 2012, 01:17 AM	#1788
ozeco41 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 7,613	They also forget that Jones walked away from his thermXte claims. So it is back to "Don't confuse me with evidence and reasoning --- my mind is made up!"
	Last edited by ozeco41; 12th February 2012 at 01:18 AM.

12th February 2012, 01:27 AM	#1789
Africanus Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 224	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author. To cut a long story short, I quote the quintessence of the article: Quote: If all of this is done and the original study is effectively debunked then the question remains, "What does this mean for the truth movement?" The answer is nothing.

12th February 2012, 01:29 AM	#1790
ozeco41 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 7,613	And that statement is true... ....but for the diametrical opposite reason to what the author intended.

12th February 2012, 01:50 AM	#1791
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 18,398	Thanks, gusy, for the summaries. Yep, I did read the articles, but didn't plan on a rebuttal. The guy simply lying. The title of the second linked post is a lie, and the first contains severel. By way of example, it presents Discussion pieces at the JEM as "peer-reviewed articles", which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ("discussions" about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review). The author commits several logical and methodological mistakes about scientific discourse that are a bit harder to spot or would require a few sentences to explain, but I won't bother. We see the same taktics as ever: hand-waving, moving goal-posts, Gish-gallopping and plain lying.

12th February 2012, 05:42 AM	#1792
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" So I started reading that article. Then I came to the first embedded video. On the screen shot which appears there is a statement that it is unsusual to find Al, Si and O in -40 micron platelettes in ordinary paint. I can only assume that we are dealing with an ignorant schmuck who talks through his trousers.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

12th February 2012, 05:44 AM	#1793
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing. Quote: I eagerly await the results of Dr Millette's tests. In fact, I want more independent scientists to look at the red/gray chips. I probably won't trust Dr Millette's tests alone if they fail to replicate the results of Harrit et al, because there's always the possibility that he could be engaging in a deception. However, if we had like 10 different teams of scientists all testing red/gray chips from different dust samples and they all failed to replicate the findings of the original paper, then I would concede to the debunkers. Says it all. Pathetic.
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper.

12th February 2012, 05:54 AM	#1794
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing. Says it all. Pathetic. Especially considering all that's needed to debunk their paper is to have someone that's competent read it.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

12th February 2012, 05:54 AM	#1795
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing. I have long given up on convincing most of the tin-foil brigade that they have been conned, or that they missed some important facts in high school science classes. I would be happy just to have some good science to show the people who have been exposed to, but not yet bought into the crappola that there were no "thermite residues" in the dust. I shall be sure, once Dr Millettes work is finished, to send a copy to radio hosts like Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes. At least once a week, I seem to hear some lunatic calling them and mentioning that thermite chips were found at GZ. They seem unconvinced, but do not know enough to counter the whackadoodles. I guess the study can at least be a public benefit in that regard.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.