ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 13th March 2012, 04:29 PM   #81
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
On the FTIR results from Harrit and Jones, yes, it will be good to see them ultimately, but only if they are going to offer any comparison to Millette's FTIR.

We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case. DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?

Millette knows Harrit and Jones did TEM and FTIR. He knows they did DSC, and that was the one test he chose to exclude. He could have conclusively debunked the Bentham paper by performing it. Why, when you have this long-awaited chance to drive the deciding nail in the coffin of thermitics in WTC dust would you not take it?? I feel sorry for bedunkers on this point.

911debunkers.blogspot.com, articles for March 5 and March 6, explain the differentiation of the aluminum and silicon in the chips found after MEK soaking. Which, if we can trust the data and its interpretation, shows us that these elements are not chemically bound, and thus are not aluminosilicates.

Millette's images (App. G) are not nearly so clear, so it's hard to know what we're looking at. But why, when his own results did not match the results that he was supposed to be replicating, would Millette not be curious about this, and do other tests to confirm? If he accepts H & J's data on this, this should be a point of concern for him.

The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2012, 04:56 PM   #82
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case.
So they chose to leave out the data that would have been totally conclusive. Not a good idea.

Quote:
DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?
I'm no expert in DSC, but I have the feeling that "exothermic process" doesn't necessarily mean "ignition".

Quote:
The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?
Expect a spectrum showing both Fe2O3 and Al absorption peaks. I guess it shouldn't be too difficult to find somewhere...
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2012, 05:38 PM   #83
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
On the FTIR results from Harrit and Jones, yes, it will be good to see them ultimately, but only if they are going to offer any comparison to Millette's FTIR.
What does that even mean??

Millette's results are on the table. Why aren't Harrit e.al.'s on the table?
All they need to do is publish the data, anybody can then compare.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case.
As it turns out, they don't present their case at all well. So they either chose badly, or they have no case.

Did you read and understand my previous couple of posts here? Why their data totally disproves that the MEK-soaked chip could possibly the same stuff as chips (a)-(d)? Why did they present Fig 14 as the only data that would establish that that chip is or isn't the same as (a)-(d), when that data is so crassly different from Fig. 7? How stupid is that?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?
Because it would be a stupid thing to do. We already know that there are at least 6 different kinds of red-gray chips in the Bentham paper. Harrit e.al. are oblivious of this very obvious fact. They offer not the slightest clue which of these 6 kinds they tested in the DSC. They did it under air, which is a stuoid idea if you are interested in a thermite reaction and not in hydrocarbon comustion. The result is inconclusive anyway: the curves must be totally dominated by hydrocarbon combustion. There is so little Fe and Al in all samples, and so much C and O, that >90% of the heat MUST be from organic combustion. Yes, we already know and don't need to test that expoxy based paint burns. Yes, we already know and don't need to test that ignition will take place somewhere between 300°C and 500C - as did Farrer's chips.

But most importantly: Millette already KNEW that there was no thermite in his samples. Harrit e.al. likewise proved with the DSC test that those chips, even though of unknown type, cannot possibly be thermitic in nature (why? Explained to you many times before. They release 5 times the heat that actual nanothermite does, and twice as much as perfect theoretic thermite would, and this despite Farrer being so stupid and leaving the red layer attached to the inert gray layer of unknown mass proportion. Conclusion: The vast majority of the the generated heat must come from organic combustion, as it can't possibly can be from thermite)

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Millette knows Harrit and Jones did TEM and FTIR. He knows they did DSC, and that was the one test he chose to exclude.
Why aren't you worried that Harrit and Jones (actually: Farrer) DID the FTIR, but never published results??

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
He could have conclusively debunked the Bentham paper by performing it. Why, when you have this long-awaited chance to drive the deciding nail in the coffin of thermitics in WTC dust would you not take it?? I feel sorry for bedunkers on this point.
Ok, smartie, tell us: Which kind of result from a DSC test that Millette could have done would debunked which part of the Bentham paper, and why?
(Answer: Since we have no clue which stuff Farrer put in the DSC, but we know it wasn't thermitic in nature, neither a similar nor a different result would debunk the Bentham paper any more than it debunks itself already)

[quote=ergo;8108213]911debunkers.blogspot.com, articles for March 5 and March 6, explain the differentiation of the aluminum and silicon in the chips found after MEK soaking. Which, if we can trust the data and its interpretation, shows us that these elements are not chemically bound, and thus are not aluminosilicates.[quote=ergo;8108213]
Yeah smartie, we knew that already: That chip is Tnemec. Tnemec contains no aluminium silicate!

Alumininum silicate is however contained in chips (a)-(d) - Harrit e.al.'s data proves that almost conclusively, and Millette confirms that finding which stands at 100% now.

911debunkers is a particularly STUPID blog.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Millette's images (App. G) are not nearly so clear, so it's hard to know what we're looking at. But why, when his own results did not match the results that he was supposed to be replicating, would Millette not be curious about this, and do other tests to confirm? If he accepts H & J's data on this, this should be a point of concern for him.
Easy. The chip Millette had soaked in MEK for 55 hours and then done an XEDS map on is different from the one Jones had soaked in MEK for 55 hours and then done an XEDS map on: Jones chip is very high in Ca and contains significant S and Zn, but no Ti; Millette's chip is very low in Ca, has no S and Zn, but some Ti.

They are different. That's why you get different results.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?
Ok, smartie: Can you tell us where to get comparison data for nanothermite? What should we be looking for?
(Answer: nanothermite is still basically Fe2O3 and Al. We have Fe2O3. So you only need to compare with Al. Nano or micro or kilo or Giga doesn't matter).

Millette found no Al, using SEM-XEDS, TEM or FTIR. Instead he found kaolin, Kaolin has equal amounts of Si and Al. The interesting (a-d-like) chips have equal Si and Al. Kaolin explains all the Si and Al in the chips. There is no elemental Al.
And that's the end of that story.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2012, 09:19 PM   #84
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2012, 09:43 PM   #85
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,280
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?
The same time your heroes are going to publish the follow up they promised in their pay to play article.

Three years ago was it? And Jonesy is working on new energy sources that would make Dr. Judy blush.

Type bedunker again.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your Clinton loving faces.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2012, 12:27 AM   #86
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,683
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?


In one ear and out the other. ergo, have you not understand a word Oystein has been saying. Why can't you see that what he is saying not only makes perfect sense, but is also 100% correct? Do you actually read and understand his posts? Or just skim through them?

When are you going to get it through your skull that Harrit et al DSC results DOES NOT SHOW THERMITIC MATERIAL.

My god.. Why do truthers choose to be deliberately ing stupid.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 14th March 2012 at 12:28 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2012, 01:10 AM   #87
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Hehe it is very telling that ergo doesn't address even one of the many point I made and instead attacks a strawman:

Originally Posted by ergo
...
Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

When are you going to do your own ignition tests?
Never.

Because I never said some of the chips don't ignite. In fact, I am sure that almost all of these paint chips will ignite, because almost all will have some organic binder. That is the reason why showing some ignition and perhaps some DSC trace tells us nothing we don't already know: That organic stuff can burn and deteriorate when heated under air.


Hey, Ergo, every reader notices thatr you dodged and evaded questions - as you do so often. So may I repeat them:


Why aren't you worried that Harrit and Jones (actually: Farrer) DID the FTIR, but never published results??


Ok, smartie, tell us: Which kind of result from a DSC test that Millette could have done would debunked which part of the Bentham paper, and why?
(Answer: Since we have no clue which stuff Farrer put in the DSC, but we know it wasn't thermitic in nature, neither a similar nor a different result would debunk the Bentham paper any more than it debunks itself already)


Ok, smartie: Can you tell us where to get comparison data for nanothermite? What should we be looking for?
(Answer: nanothermite is still basically Fe2O3 and Al. We have Fe2O3. So you only need to compare with Al. Nano or micro or kilo or Giga doesn't matter).


I suspect that you are unable to provide answers at all, and will not have answers that differ from the ones I gave away. In that case, please do at least acknowledge that you don't have an answer.

Last edited by Oystein; 14th March 2012 at 01:11 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2012, 07:28 AM   #88
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
Looks like ScootleRoyale responded to Oystein and myself.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...tended-as.html




If this was your new standard of debate, the blog wouldn't look anything like it does now.

Maybe Mohr can make an addition at the end of his videos called "A list of Steven Jones goofball experiments". My favorite one is where he dropped concrete 12 feet onto another block, and because it didn't pulverize into powder like the Twin Towers, it must of likely been explosives.
He says you can try it yourself.
(No joke)

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=125x55542

For some reason the reply has now been removed from the blog.
Kent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2012, 07:37 AM   #89
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
For some reason the reply has now been removed from the blog.
Hehe perhaps succumbed to massive amounts of facts, reason and logic in my posts 77 and 79?

Never mind - he removed one post from his blog, I added one to mine:

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Basically a refined version of post 77, with some numbers re-calculated (no major discrepancies, to be sure).
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 07:52 AM   #90
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Discussion with SnowCrash at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...7200&start=120 continues:

Originally Posted by SnowCrash
Originally Posted by Shure
This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=407

JREF Responses:
"That's not required." -- Sunstealer

Yes it damn well is required, Sunstealer. A claim was made, it needs verification.

"I have it as a private mail, but second hand, unfortunately without permission to publish." -- Oystein
Too bad Oystein. Publish or retract your claim.

I'm willing to accept your claim but not on this basis. Private mail my rear end. Then don't make accusations on the basis of private e-mails. Publish it.

And I'm not the owner of 911blogger. And stop lying to Jeff about DSC.

As for this:
Quote:
From elemental analysis we have observed that these materials have organic impurities that make up $10% of the sample by mass [23]. It is likely that the impurities are due to residual solvent and/ or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the synthesis. All of these facts undoubtedly contribute to a reduction in the total energy measured.
--Tillotson, 2001

[23] refers to "unpublished results"

There would probably be a reduction in energy measured both in air and in inert gas, although less of a reduction in air. This doesn't help resolve the issue.

Publish Tillotson's mail. Steven Jones deliberately gave the impression on numerous occasions that he had contacted Tillotson to inquire about, among other things, his DSC experiments. He implied Tillotson has informed him his DSC experiment had been conducted in air. I want to know if that was a deception. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but I'm not going to go on rumor.

I have no investment in this issue one way or another. The truth will out.
1.
I was forwarded the mail on the condition that I would NOT publish it, but we are trying to get permission, or a new statement, from Alex Gash. Unfortunately, these guys have more important things to do and don't have good reason to respond to amateurs like us on fringe topics.

SnowCrash, I am glad and commend you for calling on Legge and Jones to publish their TEM and FTIR results. It is their results after all, no problem with privacy and copyright. I am really itching to throw Tillotson's and Gash's mails at truthers, I'd do it with glee, but you must understand that it is not the proper thing to do. If I publish now what I was given under the seal of privacy, then in the future everybody will have reason not to tust me with such information.


2.
"There would probably be a reduction in energy measured both in air and in inert gas, although less of a reduction in air." - No, this is totally false, SnowCrash, and I really believe you are much too intelligent to believe it is true, so probably you are misunderstanding something here. Let me try to explain:
a) Suppose you have a material with a density of 1.5 g/cm3. Now you mix it with 10% by mass of a material that has 15 g/cm3 (and don't mix in any air). Will the mix have a higher or lower density than 1.5 g/cm3?
b) Now suppose you have a material with an energy density of 1.5 kJ/g. Now you mix it with 10% by mass of a material that has 15 kJ/g. Will the mix have a higher or lower density than 1.5 kJ/g?
I think you understand now
But to drive the point home:
c) If you mix 1 part by weight of a material with 15 kJ/g with 9 parts of a material that is inert (0 kJ/g), what will be the energy density of the resulting mix? -> Answer: 1.5 kJ/g
d) Now, suppose you have a 9:1 mix of two materials, you know the mix has kJ/g, and you know the 1 part material has 15 kJ/g - what is the energy density of the 90% material?
You getting my drift now?

If you think this through, you'll realize that Tillotson and Gash WOULD be very stupid to run their DSC under air, knowing that 10% of their sample is organic and very probably combustible at 15 and more kJ/g, and Farrer, Jones and Harrit ARE many times more stupid for actually doing their DSC under air, knowing that most of the interesting material (the red layer) is organic and very probably combustible at 15 and more kJ/g (they are even more stupid for not separating the red from the gray layer before doing the test and recording energy density, and I can tell you more reasons why the way they did and used the DSC test proves they are all extremely stupid w.r.t. DSC).


Now I would really appreciate if you would retract some lies about me (such as: "Oystein payed Millette $1000 to buy the result he wants"). Such unfounded accusations do you no favour.

Last edited by Oystein; 15th March 2012 at 07:53 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 10:42 PM   #91
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein and all: Here is the first "official" reaction from AE911Truth.

It is based on the same silly, persistent presumption that only one red primer was applied on the various steel elements in WTC. It contains sentences like "This sophisticated incendiary material has been developed in the most advanced laboratories in the world, and is designed to blast through steel,"... etc.
It also contains the same illiterate idiotic comparison of red chips with some "ordinary paint": "In one of the tests performed by Harrit and other scientists, a red-gray chip was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which is a paint solvent. While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours." These "architects and engineers" are still not able to find or understand some very basic info about polymers and are not capable to learn that any red chip with crosslinked polymer binder cannot be indeed dissolved in anything! And they still think that only one kind of paint exists in this world...


In almost all truther reactions to the Jim Millette paper, the existence of Laclede primer is not really acknowledged so far. Therefore, our white-paper on the origin of chips (a) to (d) still can bring some light, Oystein.

From this flamewar I have a feeling that SnowCrash is only smart truther who is really active and who is trying to refuse "paint theory" (perhaps since he is an owner of 911Blogger as somebody noted?). SnowCrash is informed about Laclede paint but he e.g. pointed out that no strontium chromate was found by Jim Millette. So, our victory is still only the half-victory and without the help of Jim Millette we have no good chance to change it.

Anyway, Jim Millette concluded that his analyses of red-gray chips are consistent with some paint and this single conclusion is what we really need at first.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 15th March 2012 at 11:12 PM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 12:03 AM   #92
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,683
What a dodge. and we all know 9/11 truthers will be clinging to this piece of misinformation without even looking at Millettes report.

The first two sentences;
Quote:
The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.
Who ever wrote this is being a deliberately dishonest p.o.s. What more do we expect from an organisation as pathologically dishonest as AE911
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 16th March 2012 at 12:05 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 12:34 AM   #93
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Oystein and all: Here is the first "official" reaction from AE911Truth.

It is based on the same silly, persistent presumption that only one red primer was applied on the various steel elements in WTC. It contains sentences like "This sophisticated incendiary material has been developed in the most advanced laboratories in the world, and is designed to blast through steel,"... etc.
It also contains the same illiterate idiotic comparison of red chips with some "ordinary paint": "In one of the tests performed by Harrit and other scientists, a red-gray chip was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which is a paint solvent. While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours." These "architects and engineers" are still not able to find or understand some very basic info about polymers and are not capable to learn that any red chip with crosslinked polymer binder cannot be indeed dissolved in anything! And they still think that only one kind of paint exists in this world...


In almost all truther reactions to the Jim Millette paper, the existence of Laclede primer is not really acknowledged so far. Therefore, our white-paper on the origin of chips (a) to (d) still can bring some light, Oystein.

From this flamewar I have a feeling that SnowCrash is only smart truther who is really active and who is trying to refuse "paint theory" (perhaps since he is an owner of 911Blogger as somebody noted?). SnowCrash is informed about Laclede paint but he e.g. pointed out that no strontium chromate was found by Jim Millette. So, our victory is still only the half-victory and without the help of Jim Millette we have no good chance to change it.

Anyway, Jim Millette concluded that his analyses of red-gray chips are consistent with some paint and this single conclusion is what we really need at first.
Ok, what to do...
James B. ("Brainster" at JREF, if I am not mixing things up), already wrote a short reply: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...ft-unsaid.html
Quote:
Uhh yeah, let's just avoid mentioning that it did not find thermite in any form.
I just left a comment there. Hope it will be visible soon:
Originally Posted by my comment to JamesB
Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!

Second WTC primer not considered by all the nanothermiters:

LaClede Standard Primer!

Yes, Harrit showed correctly that chips a-d is not "Tnemec" (used for perimeter columns only), but there was at least one other primer, described in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B, p. 157 of the PDF file.
The floor joists, manufactured by LaClede Steel Co., were primed with a Zinc-free formulation that consists of
- epoxy-binder (71.5%)
- pigmenr (28.5%)
The pigment in turn consisted of
- iron oxide (55%)
- Al-silicate (kaolin is one!) (41%)
- Strontium Chromate (4%)
We call this the LaClede Standard Primer.

The XEDS spectra of this formulation have a striking similarity, down to many fine details, with those of chips a-d, and the clincher is:
The document this AE911T post links to to "prove" it ain't paint, Harrit's "Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint" (http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf) contains in Fig. 5, right, the extended XEDS graph of chip (a) - IT CONTAINS BOTH STRONTIUM AND CHROMIUM! Those elements were not shown in the Bentham paper, but check out the LaClede Paint formulation I gave earlier!
I guess I need to write a short, sweet blog post myself.


As concerns the "lack" of strontium chromate, I did a simulation of LaClede paint yesterday:



Notice: Strontium is practically invisible (flat at 14.16 and 15.83 keV). I did this at 20 keV beam energy, just like Harrit an Millette, iirc.

I'll try later to do it with 25 keV and perhaps 30 keV, hoping that this will etch out peaks beyond 10 keV.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 01:02 AM   #94
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
As concerns the "lack" of strontium chromate, I did a simulation of LaClede paint yesterday:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...5micron_01.jpg

Notice: Strontium is practically invisible (flat at 14.16 and 15.83 keV). I did this at 20 keV beam energy, just like Harrit an Millette, iirc.

I'll try later to do it with 25 keV and perhaps 30 keV, hoping that this will etch out peaks beyond 10 keV.
This is a nice periodic table to use as reference in EDX. It lists the K,L and M peaks of all elements(though not their relative intensity):
http://www.edax.com/literature/periodic.aspx

The K peaks of Sr do show at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV (I guess you will need 30 or more KeV). But you should be able to see the L peaks in the 1.8 - 2.2 region

ETA: If you don't, maybe the concentration is just too low to be seen.

Last edited by Julio; 16th March 2012 at 01:05 AM.
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 01:20 AM   #95
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
This is a nice periodic table to use as reference in EDX. It lists the K,L and M peaks of all elements(though not their relative intensity):
http://www.edax.com/literature/periodic.aspx

The K peaks of Sr do show at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV (I guess you will need 30 or more KeV). But you should be able to see the L peaks in the 1.8 - 2.2 region

ETA: If you don't, maybe the concentration is just too low to be seen.
No, you are wrong, Julio. As was pointed already by Almond in the Paint thread several month ago (post No 156), there is an expected "pathological overlap" of strontium peak with silicon peak in this region at ca 1.8 KeV in this mixture of compounds. Sr peak cannot be really visible because of this (especially at this low concentration, as you noted). At best, we could observe some "tail" of this Sr peak (which we perhaps really see in some spectra, btw). This tailing seems to be observable also on the Oystein's XESD simulation just above.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th March 2012 at 01:44 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 02:46 AM   #96
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
I just wrote a new blog post to show, with references, that LaClede paint exists and what it looks like and why Harrit is a fool:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...-standard.html



As for the invisdisibility of Sr:
Si has peaks at 1.74 and 1.84 keV, Sr (L-alpha) would be at 1.81 keV. Since Si is much much stronger, you can't see the Sr signal under it.

On the far tail, near 14 and 16 keV, I just run a sim at 25 keV, still nothing really visible... I'll crank up the energy to 30 keV now ^^
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 03:48 AM   #97
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Great, Oystein. I hope that at least some truthers will read the articles on your blog
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 04:29 AM   #98
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Why fight it? Everyone knew from the very beginning, that if there ever was a study like this, the AE911T'ers would find a way to discredit the findings. It was a known fact even before anything was done. They would not accept the results and would perform amazing dodges, that we would call idiotic, but they couldn't care less. All they care is that they have responded, and shown that they disagree. It's all that matters to them. I see no point, absolutely no point, in trying to fight them in this matter, nor being somewhat surprised at their stupidity regarding the results. The reaction has been absolutely 100% as expected.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:06 AM   #99
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
ref: You perhaps do not comprehend, that we (I mean Oystein, me and some others) are not really "fighting" now with AE911Truth. For us, this "WTC paint issue" is a kind of a bizzare hobby and now, we are in some respects "fighting" mostly with the results of the Jim Millette study (with a goal to prove somehow our basic theory that Bentham chips (a) to (d) were Laclede paint particles).

I do not really care what AE911Truth people thinks. But, perhaps I have "hoped" that their reaction would be rather smarter. It is so stupid that it does not deserve any more attention here

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th March 2012 at 05:09 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:14 AM   #100
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Hi Ivan, I know about your bizarre hobby

My comment was mainly directed to Oystein, who on SLC wrote: "Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!"

I just wanted to point out once more, that no matter who tells those people what, it doesn't affect them at all. It is of no use then to even point out where they have mistaken, or whre they have taken a wrong approach, because they just don't care. Neither should us.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:23 AM   #101
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
ref: As for AE911Truth, you are right: they will not change at least their "official opinion", since they cannot. This is a kind of business for them, among others.
But in the case of other, more sincere truthers, it seems to me that Jim Millette study has already started to have some influence on them. They look quite confused now (at least some of them)
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:34 AM   #102
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
This is a nice periodic table to use as reference in EDX. It lists the K,L and M peaks of all elements(though not their relative intensity):
http://www.edax.com/literature/periodic.aspx

The K peaks of Sr do show at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV (I guess you will need 30 or more KeV). But you should be able to see the L peaks in the 1.8 - 2.2 region

ETA: If you don't, maybe the concentration is just too low to be seen.
Hey Julio, as Ivan pointed out, the Sr-peak at 1.81 keV is masked by the much higher Si-peak at 1.74 keV. I illustrated exactly how in my thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2174

Thanks for the link to that periodic table! Nice to have it on one page.
I usually look up Edge levels on http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html which is also missing intensities. But I have the McCrone Particle Atlas Vol. III on my desk, it has a table with intensities, and additionally a reverse lookup table (Edge energies sorted by energy instead of by atomic number).
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:34 AM   #103
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
ref: As for AE911Truth, you are right: they will not change at least their "official opinion", since they cannot. This is a kind of business for them, among others.
But in the case of other, more sincere truthers, it seems to me that Jim Millette study has already started to have some influence on them. They look quite confused now (at least some of them)
Really? I'm surprised to hear that anyone is left with this impression. Honestly, how many verified cases of this 'confusion' do you have? Two? Three? Fifty? I'm not following this very carefully, but why do you say this?
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:48 AM   #104
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by ref View Post
Hi Ivan, I know about your bizarre hobby

My comment was mainly directed to Oystein, who on SLC wrote: "Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!"

I just wanted to point out once more, that no matter who tells those people what, it doesn't affect them at all. It is of no use then to even point out where they have mistaken, or whre they have taken a wrong approach, because they just don't care. Neither should us.
Well, my main interest, as I have already pointed out, is the vain prospect of getting our theory confirmed. Incidentally, proving the LaClede theory destroys most of Harrit's theory.

Now, we do notice already that they are reading this very thread: SnowCrash (according to Ivan a main guy behind 911blogger?) has quoted us, and he has carried some questions directly to Frank Legge and Steven Jones. I know Chris is in contact with Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan, and at least writing to Jeff Farrer. Others I know are talking personally with Niels Harrit. So we know for a fact that the message arrives there - it will by the end of this month have reached at least 5 of the 9 authors of the Bentham and the leader of their primary business outfit, AE911T. This time we can document it: They must be keenly aware of the evidence, and of the inevitable conclusions, and yet they ignore it.

I think this is not without consequences: More and more of ae911t's have growing suspicions about the Harrit paper. Even Niels Harrit himself has recently called their paper "a mere footnote", indicating that he considers its relevance to be minimal. Steven Jones has made it clear that he no longer intends to defend it. I think "Active Thermitic Material..." will eventually get abandoned by these people, never to be resurrected.

At the same time, we observe how Gage and Ryan are desperately trying to find new audiences to sell their woo to, even turning to such blatantly non-professional and woo-prone groups like Nation of Islam - and even there they fail! Look at the active "Juggernaut" thread: With every quarter year that passes, with ever month even, support for ae911t decreases, as measured by fewer and fewer new signatures, and failure to reach even modest financial goals through donations.

It filled me with glee to see they pulled back a post by ScootleRoyale about the Millette report at Debunking the Debunkers shortly after I gave it a sound smackdown earlier in this thread. See, they are reading, and probably notice how foolish they must sound.


Perhaps we need not do anything, perhaps they'll sink into even greater obscurity without us. But it sure is one hell of fun to try and help it along

Last edited by Oystein; 16th March 2012 at 06:14 AM. Reason: added some links
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:54 AM   #105
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hey Julio, as Ivan pointed out, the Sr-peak at 1.81 keV is masked by the much higher Si-peak at 1.74 keV. I illustrated exactly how in my thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2174

Thanks for the link to that periodic table! Nice to have it on one page.
I usually look up Edge levels on http://csrri.iit.edu/periodic-table.html which is also missing intensities. But I have the McCrone Particle Atlas Vol. III on my desk, it has a table with intensities, and additionally a reverse lookup table (Edge energies sorted by energy instead of by atomic number).
You should at least see a peak broadening. A proper fitting would reveal it. On the other hand, you still have some other L lines closer to 2 KeV. Problem is I don't know their relative intensities respect to L alpha, so I guess they are just too weak to be seen.
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 05:56 AM   #106
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
Really? I'm surprised to hear that anyone is left with this impression. Honestly, how many verified cases of this 'confusion' do you have? Two? Three? Fifty? I'm not following this very carefully, but why do you say this?
Well let's see, there's one sincere 9/11 truth activist who has written to me wondering if he's been wasting his time. The Czech guy Ivan referred to is a second. I don't know of any others. And by the way, the AE911 rebuttal is at least on a higher level than Kevin Ryan's pre-release ad hominem attacks.

The AE911 thing does convince me I need to keep pushing the DSC issue with Dr. Millette before he releases his final study. I agree it is not a scientific necessity once the chemical determination of no thermite is made, but it may be necessary just as a way of doing parallel research to the Harrit study.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 06:05 AM   #107
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...
The AE911 thing does convince me I need to keep pushing the DSC issue with Dr. Millette before he releases his final study. I agree it is not a scientific necessity once the chemical determination of no thermite is made, but it may be necessary just as a way of doing parallel research to the Harrit study.
I still advise strongly against it, as long as they don't understand that

- Harrit, Jones, Farrer analysed several different kinds of chips
- Millette has severaly different kinds of chips
- There are several different kinds of primers in the towers
- Farrer gave us no idea just what material he put in the DSC

I suggest we promise to try and do a DSC test only on the condition that at least one of the main authors concedes all four of these points. Otherwise, it is clear already how they will react:
  • If Millettes results are different: "Millette studies the wrong material, it's irrelevant" Or "Millette is a fraud"
  • If Millettes results are similar: "Debunkers confirm thermitic nature of chips!"
Don't you agree?

Only if they agree first, in writing, that they concede that they may have looked at different kinds of chips, and (!!!) that they don't know (or have kept secret!!!) which kind they measured in the DSC, then it will be clear that it doesn't matter if Millette's results are different or same - Millette will be the first who does the DSC test right.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 06:13 AM   #108
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
I would also point out that NIST did a Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA), which sems to be similar to DSC, and it also showed an exothermic peak around 400ºC.

(NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D)
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 06:22 AM   #109
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
You should at least see a peak broadening. A proper fitting would reveal it. On the other hand, you still have some other L lines closer to 2 KeV. Problem is I don't know their relative intensities respect to L alpha, so I guess they are just too weak to be seen.
And you do see - just follow the link I provided:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2174

Originally Posted by Julio View Post
I would also point out that NIST did a Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA), which sems to be similar to DSC, and it also showed an exothermic peak around 400ºC.

(NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Appendix D)
Yes, but that as done on weld metal, not on paint, and apparently involves energies much lower than those from chemical reactions.
See Table D-6 (page 158 of PFD), and accompanying text om page 435 / page 149 of the PFD file.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 06:46 AM   #110
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Well let's see, there's one sincere 9/11 truth activist who has written to me wondering if he's been wasting his time. The Czech guy Ivan referred to is a second. I don't know of any others. And by the way, the AE911 rebuttal is at least on a higher level than Kevin Ryan's pre-release ad hominem attacks.

The AE911 thing does convince me I need to keep pushing the DSC issue with Dr. Millette before he releases his final study. I agree it is not a scientific necessity once the chemical determination of no thermite is made, but it may be necessary just as a way of doing parallel research to the Harrit study.
I'd like to see a qualified critique of the Harrit paper published as well. Truthers thus far are not aware of the paper's weaknesses - one of the reasons they keep insisting on a DSC from Dr Millette.
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 07:03 AM   #111
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I'd like to see a qualified critique of the Harrit paper published as well. Truthers thus far are not aware of the paper's weaknesses - one of the reasons they keep insisting on a DSC from Dr Millette.
I am in the process of writing a series of blog posts that each focus on one particular weakness of ATM (Harrit e.al.). The critique of the DSC test alone will be lengthy as there is not just one or two things wrong with it, but many.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 07:07 AM   #112
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The AE911 thing does convince me I need to keep pushing the DSC issue with Dr. Millette before he releases his final study. I agree it is not a scientific necessity once the chemical determination of no thermite is made, but it may be necessary just as a way of doing parallel research to the Harrit study.
I echo Oystein's thoughts on this.

We know that Millette's chips with EDX spectra identical to samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper are primer paint.

We know samples a-d are primer paint. 3 years ago I did the analysis and came to the conclusion that kaolin was present and that the gray layer was steel.

If you read the truther responses you will see that some of them consider Millette's work to actually debunk the primer paint hypothesis simply because his chips that match Harrit's chips are not Tnemec Red 99.

We already know that both sets are not Tnemec Red 99. Truthers do not seem to understand this. Truthers do not even acknowledge that LaClade joist primer paint was used even though we have shown the relevant documentation. Here it is again



Truthers think that only one red paint was used in the whole of the WTC complex.

These are simple ideas that have been explained over and over and over yet they still refuse to acknowledge the fact that more than one red primer paint was used in the WTC.

Truthers believe that this



is the same as this



They will quote this as proof

Quote:
Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was
acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting
spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks
for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur,
zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these
elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to
the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected
surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be
due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard
material in the buildings.
Harrit et al page 17.

even though it's wrong. You will be able to see particles of contaminant on the surface using the SEM. Truthers don't understand how a SEM works and what it's capable of achieving.

When you show them this (Fig 14, Harrit et al v Tnemec Red 99 from Jones)



they run and hide.

Secondly as Oystein points out, we have no idea which chips Farrer used in the DSC tests. Harrit et al considered ALL red chips to be the same material even though their own data shows this is not correct.

There is absolutely no point in performing DSC on Millette's chips (which match samples a-d) unless we know what the hell we are comparing them with!

We all know what will happen if the DSC curve for Millette's samples isn't an exact match for the 4 curves in Harrit et al. Truthers will scream until they are sick that the curves don't match and that this is proof that Millette is a shill/fraud/liar, that Jones did have super nano-thermite, that the JREFers were afraid of the test and the glorious knights of the truth movement outed them all, etc etc.

Stop allowing the truthers to dictate.

We, as well as the truthers, know that Harrit et al carried out FTIR but did not include the results in the paper. Why not?

We know that Harrit et al carried out TEM XRD studies but have not published the data. Why not?

It's time for the truthers to apply the same level of criticism to Harrit et al as they do to Millette's work. Why aren't the truthers doing more to get Harrit et al to release their FTIR and TEM data?

I suggest you forget about DSC until further data from Harrit et al is forthcoming. The ball is in their court.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 07:14 AM   #113
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Otherwise, it is clear already how they will react:
  • If Millettes results are different: "Millette studies the wrong material, it's irrelevant" Or "Millette is a fraud"
  • If Millettes results are similar: "Debunkers confirm thermitic nature of chips!"
Don't you agree?
Exactly. Try to bear this in mind, Chris. Moreover, the similar "results" can be expected in the case of these "iron-microspheres" in the red chips ash after burning:
- If Millette does not find microspheres: "Millette studies the wrong material, it's irrelevant" Or "Millette is a fraud"
- If Millettes finds microspheres: "Debunkers confirm thermitic nature of chips!"

Enough is enough. Idiots, who are not able to understand that kaolinite REALLY can not be active "substitute" of elemental aluminum in thermites, does not deserve any more research
If you want, gather some more money, Chris, but truthers should pay for those additional DSC experiments and analysis.
I am willing to pay only for the proof of strontium now

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th March 2012 at 07:34 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 07:32 AM   #114
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Well let's see, there's one sincere 9/11 truth activist who has written to me wondering if he's been wasting his time. The Czech guy Ivan referred to is a second. I don't know of any others. And by the way, the AE911 rebuttal is at least on a higher level than Kevin Ryan's pre-release ad hominem attacks.

The AE911 thing does convince me I need to keep pushing the DSC issue with Dr. Millette before he releases his final study. I agree it is not a scientific necessity once the chemical determination of no thermite is made, but it may be necessary just as a way of doing parallel research to the Harrit study.
I'm not sure that an estimate of the number of Truthers touched by this discussion is a topic worth pursuing. But I presume the implication of this post is that the 2 names you are able to supply are just the tip of some growing iceberg of influence.

I don't know how realistic that is. I can say that among the Truthers of the Ron Paul Revolution, some of whom are AE9/11T members and supporters, not one has breathed a word about this. I doubt almost any of them are even aware of this debate. I doubt almost any of them will ever become aware of the debate. Over on the Let's Roll Forum, an attempt to get discussion of these results going by a member using the name TruthMakesPeace (by the way, I'm wondering if you know TruthMakesPeace in the real world) has had almost no response. And n the meantime, regular members of the forum are continuing with their posts about how actors were pretending to be firefighters and here or how no one really jumped from the burning WTC towers.

While this may be a great chance for our local JREF experts to polish up their thermite game, the only place I see anyone talking about this is here.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 16th March 2012 at 07:34 AM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 08:04 AM   #115
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
We, as well as the truthers, know that Harrit et al carried out FTIR but did not include the results in the paper. Why not?

We know that Harrit et al carried out TEM XRD studies but have not published the data. Why not?

It's time for the truthers to apply the same level of criticism to Harrit et al as they do to Millette's work. Why aren't the truthers doing more to get Harrit et al to release their FTIR and TEM data?

I suggest you forget about DSC until further data from Harrit et al is forthcoming. The ball is in their court.
Exactly.

In addition, I think a necessary prerequisite for any "repitition" of the DSC tests ids that we get, in writing, from at least one of the major authors of the Bentham paper (Jones, Harrit, Farrer or Ryan), that he acknowledges all of the following points:
  1. There was at least potentially more than one kind of red-gray chips in their Bentham paper(1)
  2. There very probably are different kinds of red-gray chips in Millette's study
  3. There is not only one, but at least two (and quite likely more) red steel primers on major compoments of the WTC structural steel, and that therefore, Harrit's correct proof that chips (a)-(d) are not Tnemec does NOT imply these chips are not primer - they could be LaClede Standard primer(2), or some other paint.
  4. They did not know, or kept secret, the chemical signature of the four chips on which they published DSC data. Unless they tell us the chemical signature of these chips, it is impossible to repeat the test, as point 2. shows that there is almost certainly more than one candidate.
At the very least, we need to get them to acknowledge that they are aware of these claim, each one of them. I think they'll even avoid that modest level of honesty.

Chris, I think it is vitally important that you understand why a repetition of an such experiment is useless, when you don't know which stuff to do it upon(3). The result, whatever it is, cannot possibly be compared, and no conclusion can possibly reached, without first knowing the details of what they actually did in the first place. If you just go ahead and do something, then I will bett you $1000 that the result will be spun, and you will have gained nothing(4).



-------------
Footnotes:
(1) See my blog: Why red-gray chips aren't all the same
(2) See my blog: Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer
(3) Let me try to illustrate this with an analogy: Suppose Jeff Farrer had gone to 666 Bourbon Street in New Aeleans and slept with a very attractive (not to a magnetm but to men) red-headed woman. He writes a paper and explains that this red-headed woman will orgasm after about 430 seconds, he has tried that four times and measured it with a stop clock. And he claims that this somehow proves this women is from a secret Kibbuz in Israel, because he has read somewhere about another lady who was from Israel and orgasmed after 540 seconds. An argument ensues, we doubt that this woman is Israeli. How can we check this? For starters, watching a stop clock during sex is not a competent method to determine the nationality a woman. But Farrer's friends insist that it is and you are only too wimpy too try it yourself. So you travel to New Aeleans (costs you money!), and you find that 666 Bourbon Street is a brothel (costs you more money) and that they have several red-headed ladies on offer! Farrer must have been unaware that he was in a brothel and perhaps thought there was only one red-head. So, unfortunately, Farrer forgot to write down his lady's name or any other information you could have used to identify her (other than that she is red-headed and attracted to men). So what will you do: Sleep with any random red-head? Or sleep with all red-heads that happen to be in the house as you visit? What will you do with the results? Suppose you find a lady who also has (or rather fakes) an orgasm after 7 minutes - is she then the same Farrer slept with? If your lady orgasms sooner or later or not at all, does that mean that Farrer's lady is from Israel, or not?
(4) For once, this bet is not meant serious. Not because I am not sufficiently convinced I would win, but because the criteria to tell who has won can't be described precisely enough. Where does "spin" start, and what constitutes "gain"? Such criteria are necessarily subjective, and cannot be the object of an honest bet

Last edited by Oystein; 16th March 2012 at 08:40 AM. Reason: Late edit in blue, I think this comparison is sharper
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 08:27 AM   #116
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
(3) Let me try to illustrate this with an analogy: Suppose Jeff Farrer had gone to 666 Bourbon Street in New Aeleans and slept with a very attractive (not to a magnetm but to men) red-headed woman. He writes a paper and explains that this red-headed woman will orgasm after about 430 seconds, he has tried that four times and measured it with a stop clock. And he claims that this somehow proves this women is ... whatever, under 5'6" tall. An argument ensues, we doubt that this woman is under 5'6" tall. How can we check this? For starters, watching a stop clock during sex is not a competent method to determine the height of a women. But Farrer's friends insist that it is and you are only too wimpy too try it yourself. So you travel to New Orleans (costs you money!), and you find that 666 Bourbon Street is a brothel (costs you more money) and that they have several red-headed ladies on offer! Farrer must have been unaware that he was in a brothel and perhaps thought there was only one red-head. So, unfortunately, Farrer forgot to write down his lady's name or any other information you could have used to identify her (other than that she is red-headed and attracted to men). So what will you do: Sleep with any random red-head? Or sleep with all red-heads that happen to be in the house as you visit? What will you do with the results? Suppose you find a lady who also has (or rather fakes) an orgasm after 7 minutes - is she then the same Farrer slept with? If your lady orgasms sooner or later or not at all, does that mean that Farrer's lady is taller or shorter than 5'6"?
Yes...yes...this is exactly the problem. It is the problem I was referring to in the statement that jaydeehess now uses in his signature (and by the way jay, thank you very much),

Quote:
That Truthers go about 'measuring' things without any system that would allow comparison points to their failure in performing formal operations. In a way, it's a kind of folk science of the events of 9/11. Without any way to produce data that's comparable either with scientific data or with the data of other Truther so-called 'scientists', it appears upon a systematic inspection to be just a mass of statements connected by a rhetoric.
And now these guys are pretending to do experiments? Who cares what they say they've found? It's all a big joke. Anyone who can believe this 9/11 Truth stuff - at any level - doesn't need evidence to believe anything. They don't need properly conducted experimentation. They don't need proper control or real measurement. They just have belief. Jones and Harriat or Jim Millett, the science involved is beyond almost anyone here, so what was it that they believed in the first place? And why would another bunch of statements that they can't understand change their mind? At least Phil Jayhan at Let's Roll is consistent that he doesn't believe anything he can't understand. Too bad he's so stupid.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 08:49 AM   #117
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And you do see - just follow the link I provided:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2174
Sorry, i wasn't following that thread
Julio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 08:54 AM   #118
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,394
Some threads on Above Top Secret:

ATS: WTC Dust Study Confirms: No Thermite!
ATS: Finally there is an independent investigation, and not a word about it on ATS?


Dang, I thought I had more, but ... have to run...
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 09:15 AM   #119
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,828
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Some threads on Above Top Secret:

ATS: WTC Dust Study Confirms: No Thermite!
ATS: Finally there is an independent investigation, and not a word about it on ATS?


Dang, I thought I had more, but ... have to run...
I went through some of these posts when they were referred to in an earlier post here about how positively these findings were being received by conspiracy advocates. I did not find this to be the case. Many of the comments that are accepting of Millett's findings came from conspiracy critics, either from the JREF or elsewhere. I saw no evidence at all of Truthers being concerned by these results. Admittedly I have not really looked at this very diligently, but as far as I can tell, the only Truther troubled by all this is Chris Mohr's personal friend.

I know we're not supposed to talk like this; it ruins all the fun. This whole idea that you can sort this 9/11 conspiracy out with an experiment is weird. The idea makes no sense and there never was any reason to believe in it - in its thermite version or any other way. It wouldn't matter to me if Jim Millette came back and said "Holy carroly Batman, that WTC dust is full of thermite." The WTC towers were brought down by airplanes and fire, and that's all.

I know this opinion is shared by many of the people here on the JREF and by scientists all over the world. But as I have said before, I am left with the impression that if that had happened, Chris Mohr might be the next new member of AE9/11T.

I suspect that for many Truthers, this whole charade has only fortified their belief in the Jones & Harriat fiasco. The idea that a legitimate scientist is "replicating" their study means that the original study must have been done correctly. I know nothing about thermite, but Oystein's words on this certainly don't surprise me. In my life, I have never imagined such a pile of crap as 9/11 Truth. I suppose Holocaust denial is even a bigger pile of crap - but just barely.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 16th March 2012 at 09:16 AM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2012, 09:37 AM   #120
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
This seems like a lot of trouble for the truthers to go through, considering that the best they can hope for is that their beliefs will be viewed as "mostly nonsense" rather than "complete and utter nonsense".
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.