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 21st March 2012, 08:23 AM   #161
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Meanwhile, the Millette paper is actually serving to bring wider attention to the issue of nanothermite in the WTC dust. I look forward to intelligent debate by credible scientists using their real names.
Like Milette, "ergo"? Lulz.

Type Bedunker, "ergo," that you are good at.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 21st March 2012, 08:28 AM   #162
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Even if true, there were no sightings of damage consistent with that or melting on the column connections or otherwise. The study answers the basic questions and is corroborated by the studies already done to determine the mechanics of the collapse. The responses I've seen objecting to the study all are contingent on the already unsupported/flawed belief that the towers were demolished as the starting premise. As I said before the study was chris's choice to undertake and I'm happy he was willing to satisfy my personal curiosity, but in the end most controlled demolition proponents are going to find excuses to undermine it and continue with the conspiracy argument and no experiment however well composed is designed to convince people who are unable to view things objectively.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 21st March 2012 at 08:31 AM.
Grizzly Bear 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 21st March 2012, 08:46 AM   #163
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'm a bit late to the party, but I checked your link, read through FAQ #7. Has there been a "debunking" of their points? Because they lay out what looks like a reasonable response to the assertion that the chips are primer paint.

If you've addressed this elsewhere feel free to simply link to it.
Oy didn't respond so I'll open it up to anyone...
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 21st March 2012, 08:57 AM   #164
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Oy didn't respond so I'll open it up to anyone...
As far as gage's nonsense, the "points" raised in that article have been addressed IN THIS VERY THREAD.

Like the point that Gage's bull **** article opens up with a huge whopper of a freaking lie. You did notice that IN THIS VERY THREAD?

And the point that Gage lies and claims that only one type of primer paint was addressed IN THIS VERY THREAD?

You even in the correct thread?

Hey, you didn't address how "Silverstein made out like a bandit" so I'll open it up to anyone....

lulz.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 21st March 2012, 09:07 AM   #165
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
As far as gage's nonsense, the "points" raised in that article have been addressed IN THIS VERY THREAD.

Like the point that Gage's bull **** article opens up with a huge whopper of a freaking lie. You did notice that IN THIS VERY THREAD?

And the point that Gage lies and claims that only one type of primer paint was addressed IN THIS VERY THREAD?

You even in the correct thread?

Hey, you didn't address how "Silverstein made out like a bandit" so I'll open it up to anyone....

lulz.
You violated at least two of the forum's rules in this one post, so please don't be surprised when I don't respond to any more of your posts.

All I am asking for is to be directed to specific posts that address their points. Thanks.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 21st March 2012, 09:14 AM   #166
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You violated at least two of the forum's rules in this one post, so please don't be surprised when I don't respond to any more of your posts.

All I am asking for is to be directed to specific posts that address their points. Thanks.
Feel free to report it, friend, but do keep in mind that there is a forum management section. As such do try to keep on subject. Thanks.

And here is a place in the thread where Gage's nonsense is discussed again!

|
|
|
|
|
V

Even truthers have pointed out that Gage's bull **** article opens up with a huge whopper of a freaking lie.

Gage's claims that only one type of primer paint was used in the WTC is utterly false

Thanks bro, feel free to ignore this response so you can feel like Gage's paper was totally ignored.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 21st March 2012, 09:18 AM   #167
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
If you've addressed this elsewhere feel free to simply link to it.
Here for example (Sunstealer)
Perhaps you'd want to read through the thread and find responses relevant to the matter the FAQ you cite discusses. Then point out why you believe their assessments are more reliable by providing your opinions. 5 pages shouldn't be too heavy of a read to examine the points you might consider relevant
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 21st March 2012 at 09:25 AM.
Grizzly Bear 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 21st March 2012, 09:22 AM   #168
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Here for example (Sunstealer)
Both Sun and Oy have provided thorough analyses, but I don't see where Gage, et al suggested that there was only one type of primer. Gage says that the chips don't match the primer paint used for the steel in the WTC, not necessarily that there was only one.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 21st March 2012, 09:27 AM   #169
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Both Sun and Oy have provided thorough analyses, but I don't see where Gage, et al suggested that there was only one type of primer. Gage says that the chips don't match the primer paint used for the steel in the WTC, not necessarily that there was only one.
And its already been pointed out that Gage lies through omission.

Hell lets take that the next step, Red, the fact is that other types of primer paint were used at the WTC, and the fact that Gage does not mention them makes his analysis a pointless waste of time.

But that's been mentioned before in this thread.

Do you want me to link you to this thread in which you are posting? Or y'all just gonna not bother reading it?
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st March 2012 at 09:34 AM.
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 21st March 2012, 09:28 AM   #170
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Heh.

Must be hard for 9/11 bedunkers to be nothing more than anonymous internet posters with no legitimate venues through which to assert their authority on these subjects.

Oh well, I guess it's your choice to languish in the backwaters...
If the 9/11 Truth movement actually existed outside of the internet, I would have no problem exerting my expertise in the matter. But it doesn't. The 9/11 Truth movement is an internet-only phenomenon. Need proof? How many 9/11 Truth protesters showed up on 9/11/2011 at GZ? But there's something even more damning for the Truth movement coming from the scientific community.

Let's look at an event that Steven Jones is very familiar with. The year was 1989, March. Pons, Fleischmann and Steven Jones had agreed to transmit their "discovery" of cold fusion to the Journal Nature via Fed Ex on the same date. However, Pons and Fleischmann decided to break the agreement and sent their data ahead to another journal. Two major papers were published in widely read, peer-reviewed, respectable publications with high impact factors about cold fusion. The scientific community at large (meaning researchers at major universities, private and government research institutions, among others) spent about 3 years attempting to replicate the experiment. Millions of dollars were spent trying to confirm and understand the results of the experiment. The end result is that cold fusion is hokum, and no legitimate papers have been presented proving otherwise.

Now flash forward to 2009, Harrit, Jones and a collection of others publish a paper in a little known open access journal with an impact factor of approximately 0. The result is that the scientific community ignores it for 3 years until Chris Mohr decides to organize another study. The study confirms that no thermite was found in the dust, and is in every single aspect a better, more accurate, more complete study than Jones et al. Said study finds, unequivocally, that the conclusions of Harrit et al are hokum.

The true question is: Why were the reactions to the studies so different? To me, the answer is that one study provided sufficient evidence and experimental detail to warrant further study. The other study, meanwhile, wasn't in the least bit interesting. It was ignored because the argument was riddled with errors and non-sequiturs. It was ignored because the authors couldn't even convince enough scientists that the data warranted further investigation. That's a lot of fail.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 21st March 2012, 09:58 AM   #171
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,243
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Both Sun and Oy have provided thorough analyses, but I don't see where Gage, et al suggested that there was only one type of primer. Gage says that the chips don't match the primer paint used for the steel in the WTC, not necessarily that there was only one.
I undelined, bolded, italicized and colored the bit that you have missed.

Some exam questions for you:

1. If someone talks about "the cornerback who scored a TD in the 49ers game last night", does he imply that one cornerback scored a TD, or that two or more cornerbacks scored a TD?

2. If you tell your wife that she is "the woman" that you love, will she conlude from that statement that you love only her, or would she conclude that you may love two or more women?


Please use the words "singular" and "plural" in your discussion.


3a. If Harrit or Gage tells you that something doesn't match "the WTC steel primer paint", what is he talking about - one steel primer, or two or more steel primers?
3b. If you opt for "two or more", please cite evidence that either Gage or Harrit even knows there was more than one primer, and cite evidence provided by either Gage or Harrit that proves the chips don't match a second primer, other than Tnemec.
3c. What other primer do the chips not match?

4. How many primers were used on the WTC steel? Please list them!

5. For extra credit: How many different kinds of red-gray, magnetic chips can be found in WTC dust?

-------------------------------

Let's see how many questions RedIbis can answer without cheating

He is allowed to use the following links:

Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same
Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite


By the way: I have RedIbis on ignore, that's why I didn't respond earlier. I only see his posts when I am logged out. Can someone please quote him in case he replies to this post?

I'll make a prediction: RedIbis will dodge 5 out of 5 questions and not acknowldge that
- Gage implies there is only one WTC steel primer
- There are in fact two or more WTC steel primers
- Gage implies there is only one kind of red-gray chips
- There are in fact more than 5 different kinds of red-gray chips
- One kind of chip closely matches Tnemec primer paint from WTC perimeter columns
- One kind of chip closely matches LaClede's shop primer paint from WTC floor joists








---------------------

Cheat sheet:

1. Because "the cornerback" is singular, only one cornerback is implied. If two or more were implied, the plural form "the cornerbacks" would have been used.

2. Because "the woman" is singular, only one woman, your wife, is implied. If two or more were implied, you would have used the plural form "the women". If you had used the singular, even though you know that plural is true, you would have lied to your wife.

3a. 1. Because "the primer paint" is singular, only one primer paint is implied. If two or more were implied, the plural form "the primer paints" would have been used. If gage had used the singular, even though he knows that plural is true, he would have lied
3b. No such evidence exists.
3c. Since no evidence has been provided by Gage or Harrit that the chips don't match other WTC primer paints, the answer is "we don't know"

4. At least two, but possibly more, primer paints were used to paint WTC steel:
- Tnemec for the perimeter columns
- LaClede shop primer for the floor joists.
- The primers of other steel, such as core columns, core beams, hat truss, mechanical floors etc are not known. These elements may also have been painted with Tnemec, or with a third primer, or even several other primers.

5. At least 6, according to a careful reading of Harrit e.al., possibly more.

Last edited by Oystein; 21st March 2012 at 10:01 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 21st March 2012, 10:19 AM   #172
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
Quote:
Let's see how many questions RedIbis can answer without cheating
I don't mean to FTFY, but

Quote:
Let's see how many questions RedIbis can will answer. without cheating
I'm going zero.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 21st March 2012, 10:30 AM   #173
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post

Hey, you didn't address how "Silverstein made out like a bandit" so I'll open it up to anyone....

lulz.
[derail]
Red and I discussed this a some length in a thread not long ago. I don't believe he still holds to this belief, [/derail]
__________________
"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
DGM 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 21st March 2012, 11:16 AM   #174
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I undelined, bolded, italicized and colored the bit that you have missed.

Some exam questions for you:

1. If someone talks about "the cornerback who scored a TD in the 49ers game last night", does he imply that one cornerback scored a TD, or that two or more cornerbacks scored a TD?

2. If you tell your wife that she is "the woman" that you love, will she conlude from that statement that you love only her, or would she conclude that you may love two or more women?


Please use the words "singular" and "plural" in your discussion.


3a. If Harrit or Gage tells you that something doesn't match "the WTC steel primer paint", what is he talking about - one steel primer, or two or more steel primers?
3b. If you opt for "two or more", please cite evidence that either Gage or Harrit even knows there was more than one primer, and cite evidence provided by either Gage or Harrit that proves the chips don't match a second primer, other than Tnemec.
3c. What other primer do the chips not match?

4. How many primers were used on the WTC steel? Please list them!

5. For extra credit: How many different kinds of red-gray, magnetic chips can be found in WTC dust?

-------------------------------

Let's see how many questions RedIbis can answer without cheating

He is allowed to use the following links:

Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer
Why red-gray chips aren't all the same
Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite


By the way: I have RedIbis on ignore, that's why I didn't respond earlier. I only see his posts when I am logged out. Can someone please quote him in case he replies to this post?

I'll make a prediction: RedIbis will dodge 5 out of 5 questions and not acknowldge that
- Gage implies there is only one WTC steel primer
- There are in fact two or more WTC steel primers
- Gage implies there is only one kind of red-gray chips
- There are in fact more than 5 different kinds of red-gray chips
- One kind of chip closely matches Tnemec primer paint from WTC perimeter columns
- One kind of chip closely matches LaClede's shop primer paint from WTC floor joists








---------------------

Cheat sheet:

1. Because "the cornerback" is singular, only one cornerback is implied. If two or more were implied, the plural form "the cornerbacks" would have been used.

2. Because "the woman" is singular, only one woman, your wife, is implied. If two or more were implied, you would have used the plural form "the women". If you had used the singular, even though you know that plural is true, you would have lied to your wife.

3a. 1. Because "the primer paint" is singular, only one primer paint is implied. If two or more were implied, the plural form "the primer paints" would have been used. If gage had used the singular, even though he knows that plural is true, he would have lied
3b. No such evidence exists.
3c. Since no evidence has been provided by Gage or Harrit that the chips don't match other WTC primer paints, the answer is "we don't know"

4. At least two, but possibly more, primer paints were used to paint WTC steel:
- Tnemec for the perimeter columns
- LaClede shop primer for the floor joists.
- The primers of other steel, such as core columns, core beams, hat truss, mechanical floors etc are not known. These elements may also have been painted with Tnemec, or with a third primer, or even several other primers.

5. At least 6, according to a careful reading of Harrit e.al., possibly more.
Holy Pedant!
Several times in this thread, most recently by 16.5, Gage is called a liar because he said,"the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips" in the FAQ.

Your grammar lesson fails because his use of "the primer paint" does not address whether or not there was more than one type of primer. The phrase can easily be read as all-inclusive (unless you want to be overly pedantic about it).

For example, if we say that furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires. No one is going to assume that there was only one brand of furniture. This doesn't mean Gage is correct or that you are correct, just that these charges of Gage lying are ridiculous because he said "the primer paint" instead of all types of primer. He can certainly still be wrong.

If Gage is a liar than so is Millette since he made the exact same claim.

Reading back on your post I see that you have me on ignore, which explains why you didn't answer simple and direct other questions in other threads. I won't address you directly any longer. I suspect you got frustrated when I asked simple layman's questions that you simply cannot bluster your way through.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 21st March 2012, 11:26 AM   #175
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Holy Pedant!
Several times in this thread, most recently by 16.5, Gage is called a liar because he said,"the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips" in the FAQ.

Your grammar lesson fails because his use of "the primer paint" does not address whether or not there was more than one type of primer. The phrase can easily be read as all-inclusive (unless you want to be overly pedantic about it).

For example, if we say that furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires. No one is going to assume that there was only one brand of furniture. This doesn't mean Gage is correct or that you are correct, just that these charges of Gage lying are ridiculous because he said "the primer paint" instead of all types of primer. He can certainly still be wrong.

If Gage is a liar than so is Millette since he made the exact same claim.

Reading back on your post I see that you have me on ignore, which explains why you didn't answer simple and direct other questions in other threads. I won't address you directly any longer. I suspect you got frustrated when I asked simple layman's questions that you simply cannot bluster your way through.
The furniture analogy is very bad. Because he didn't just say it doesn't match the primer paint, he says "the" primer paint has these characteristics, x, y, z." The chip does not match it. Therefore not primer paint.

however, he does not acknowledge that there was other primer paint used with different characteristics!

Yet Gage accuses Milette of falsity. Oh Irony.

here is the quote:

"However, scientific evidence gathered by both the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Harrit’s team of scientists clearly shows that this claim is false, since the properties of the primer paint are strikingly different from those of the red-gray chips.

First of all, several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium."

Gage says Milette's claim is "false" because it does not match ONE type of primer paint while not disclosing the fact there were other primer paints, yet Red is defending Gage....
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 21st March 2012 at 11:41 AM.
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 21st March 2012, 11:46 AM   #176
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,243
Did you quote RedIbis fully?
Then he did as I expected: Answer 0 of 5 questions. Quite on par.
But I lol'd:
Originally Posted by RedIbis
if we say that furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires. No one is going to assume that there was only one brand of furniture.
Hahaha.

But if we say that "the brand of furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires", than yes, that would imply "one brand". In merely "that furniture", there is no "brand", neither singular nor plural.

[ETA]Add "grammar" to the list of things you don't understand.[/ETA]


And stupid posts like this are the reason why it's best to have you on ignore.

Last edited by Oystein; 21st March 2012 at 11:49 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 21st March 2012, 12:46 PM   #177
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
For example, if we say that furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires. No one is going to assume that there was only one brand of furniture. This doesn't mean Gage is correct or that you are correct, just that these charges of Gage lying are ridiculous because he said "the primer paint" instead of all types of primer. He can certainly still be wrong.
How can you even use that example with a straight face? That is completely ludicrous.

Furniture:
Large movable equipment, such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working.

In the hilited portion you'll see that they actually use plural definitions of what IS described as furniture. Meaning that the word you are using is plural. You wouldn't say, "Hey, I am moving out from my mom's basement. Will you help me get my furnitures out?" Maybe YOU would...I wouldn't.

Also, I believe there could be a website dedicated to the lies that Gage KNOWINGLY spills on a daily basis. He's a conman using sub intelligent individuals to make money off of, it is that easy.

Millette gained nothing, financially, from his experiment. He asked for WAY less than would be required to perform the tests. The opposite of Gage in every way.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 21st March 2012, 01:49 PM   #178
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Did you quote RedIbis fully?
Then he did as I expected: Answer 0 of 5 questions. Quite on par.
But I lol'd:

Hahaha.

But if we say that "the brand of furniture in WTC 7 fueled the fires", than yes, that would imply "one brand". In merely "that furniture", there is no "brand", neither singular nor plural.

[ETA]Add "grammar" to the list of things you don't understand.[/ETA]


And stupid posts like this are the reason why it's best to have you on ignore.
Who's the one under a misconception? Gage doesn't say the chips don't match "the brand of primer" used in the WTC. He simply says "primer" so it too is neither singular nor plural. You proved my point.

Keeping me on ignore I'm sure will help you avoid my other point which is that if Gage is being called a liar, you would have to call Millette the same.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 21st March 2012, 01:59 PM   #179
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,978
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Who's the one under a misconception? Gage doesn't say the chips don't match "the brand of primer" used in the WTC. He simply says "primer" so it too is neither singular nor plural. You proved my point.

Keeping me on ignore I'm sure will help you avoid my other point which is that if Gage is being called a liar, you would have to call Millette the same.
Actually he says "the primer" and then goes on to talk about one specific brand of primer, and from there concludes that Milette lied, and you are sticking up for this scumbag? cripes.

Perhaps you'll explain how Millette was a liar? Because that statement makes as much sense as your furniture analogy.

By the way, you also ignored the fact that other truthers have accused Gage of lying.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 21st March 2012, 06:11 PM   #180
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,683
pointless argument is pointless..
__________________
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
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 22nd March 2012, 02:23 AM   #181
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Well, after SnowCrash, there is another contributor on AE911Truth, who is perplexed by the "official" claim that Jim Millette did not confirm paint:

Kdub:

"This kind of attempt to frame the results to match a theory is very disturbing.
So let me get this straight, AE in their newsletter attempts to decree a sort of victory by saying that the chips weren't from paint. And yet the test still proves there was NO THERMITE OR NANOTHERMITE because there is no aluminum? Very deceptive. AE911truth, will you please correct this glaring error? Explain please because I know you all are thoughtful people and SOME people actually consider you a leader."


So far, not so many shocked truthers, but at least some
And it is a pity that Jim Millette have not mentioned Laclede paint at least as some "possible candidate" of the red material in his preliminary report

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 22nd March 2012 at 02:38 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 22nd March 2012, 08:02 AM   #182
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,243
911Blogger now approaching full melt-down / schism mode:

Originally Posted by zica
I cannot believe the moderation you are receiving, SnowCrash. I saw the discussion-turned-moderation between you and LeftWright on the no-Muslims thread. It was sad.

LeftWright, you have a very shameful record of moderation recently. Please re-read your:

1. Bringing up a technical topic (analogue audio)
2. Having your claims technically refuted regarding said topic by SnowCrash
3. Changing the subject to moderation of SnowCrash, calling him off-topic and basically full of **** - and then NOT affirming or denying said refutation. It was an obvious dodge of a topic you brought up and then abuse of moderation power to avoid looking like you were wrong. And it only made you look like a complete ******* to me.

I am dropping my monthly subscription to this site after seeing this behavior and also witnessing the blocking of commenting on the Kevin Ryan tries to cover his ass for doing something stupid (presenting at NOI) thread (if it wasn't stupid, why did they leave it out of the newsletter?). And I hear there was a bunch deleted there too.

This is literally retarded.

I am having fun! Why have I never before followed that blog?
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 22nd March 2012, 08:26 AM   #183
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
pointless argument is pointless..
Just as RedIbis likes it. He can argue semantics till the cows come home.
__________________
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
Old 22nd March 2012, 09:18 AM   #184
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,243
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oh they are reading what we write hehehe


Hey, ScootleRoyale, I got some ...


ETA Oh dear they ARE responding directly to this - and make fools of themselves:


Alright, ScootleRoyale, let's compare the XEDS spectra.
Here's chips (a)-(d):

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...rial_Fig07.jpg

Please notice the similarities: ...

Now on to Fig 14:
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...rial_Fig14.jpg
Let's see if we find the same similarities:
[snipped list]
So in fact this XEDS graph is different from the graphs of chips (a)-(d) in every single way!
And you say they concluded from THIS that it was the same??? Honestly??

...
Conclusion: The MEK chip is a different material.[/b]

Now some claim that perhaps the XEDS in Fig 14 is contaminated with gypsum, i.e. calcium sulfide. Problem with that: ... Basically, to use "contamination" to explain why Fig 14 is so very different from Fig. 7, you need to remove
  • >80% of the oxygen (highest peak)
  • all of the major metal (calcium, 2nd highest peak)
  • 75% of the iron(4th highest peak)
  • 50% of the silicone (5th-highest peak)
  • all of the sulfur (6th-highest peak)
  • all of the Zn
  • all of the Mg
  • most of the Cr
In other words: With the exception of Al and C, you must declare more than 50% of everything in this chip to be "contamination".

Wow. What a handwave Harrit, Jones and Farrer tried there! And ScootleRoyale apparently fell for it!
Yeehaa!! Hey, ScootleRoyale replies with a new blog post:

Oystein's Contamination Denial

First of all: I am happy that he presents, even quotes, the argument I made here. Good job, ScootleRoyale!

Then he goes on to make excellent arguments about the Millette paper: He shows several of Millette's spectra of red layers, points out differences ... all very well, ScootleRoyale!

He states:
Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
Using Oystein's reasoning, you could claim that none of these chips are a match for chips (a)-(d) in Harrit et al either. But Millette concluded, after cross-sectioning and SE imaging, that they are a match. It seems the unusual peaks in these surface spectra were due to surface contamination, just as Harrit et al reasoned for their Figure 14.
Well, mostly right, ScootleRoyale! Not bad!

Just a few minor corrections:
a) These spectra indicate that several, perhaps even many chips, are not a match for chips (a)-(d)
b) Millette doesn't claim they are all a match for chips (a)-(d). Some could be, some probably not
c) Millette picked those that he thought would be a match, and looked at them more closely, and BINGO - no elemental Al, just kaolin and iron oxide!

Just one more thing: ScootleRoyale: Your analysis as well as mine shows that there are different kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust! Copy that?


Uh and then it's downhill for ScootleRoyale:
Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
So what does Oystein believe they actually soaked in MEK? Tnemec primer! Wait so [1] is he saying Tnemec primer contains elemental aluminium? [2] Is he saying saying that Tnemec primer doesn't dissolve in paint solvent? Oystein's claim makes no sense. [3] The reason Harrit et al soaked a chip in MEK was to compare the result to Tnemec primer!
Let's see:
[1] No, I don't say that. I doubt that Harrit's quantification routine on one particular XEDS graph is accurate (quantification of XEDS data is never accurate).
[2] Uhm yes, I think this is quite the possilbility: Fully cross-linked polymers like many paint binders aren't easily dissolved by thinners, they often just swell
[3] Nope hun, that ain't right. The word "Tnemec" doesn't even appear in the paper, so how can you claim the purpose of the MEK test was to compare with Tnemec? Where is the MEK-soaking data on Tnemec? Do you know which paint they used in fact? It's hard to know, because Harrit e.al. forgot to tell you. Like so many other things they forgot to tell you. But I happen to know. Hint: It wasn't WTC paint.

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
Oystein does have a point though. The fact that there's no pre-MEK structural analysis is a weakness of the Harrit et al paper. Oystein's criticism is fair.
Wow, thanks

Scootle goes on to re-post Fig 19 - the four DSC traces made by Farrer. And observes:
Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
Notice how two of the traces go into the negative at around 620-670 degrees celsius. A small endothermic peak in this temperature range is characteristic of aluminium melting. This suggests that even after the reaction, there was still some elemental aluminium left over in those chips, which then melted.
Again: Wow! I am impressed! He found an endothermic region in the plots! Where did he learn that? From Harrit, Jones or Farrer? From the Bentham paper? Or perhaps ... from me??
Originally Posted by Oystein
the black and green line go below zero power (endotherm) beyond ~540°C, while red and blue stay above zero (exotherm) all the way.
But hey, ScootleRoyale, why do only two of the DSC chips show this behaviour, while the other two don't? Perhaps...
...there are different kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust?! Copy that?

So, ScootleRoyale, can you tell me what the chips looked like (photo, SEM, XEDS...) that Farrer tested in the DSC? You agree "there's no pre-MEK structural analysis is a weakness of the Harrit et al paper". Would you also agree that there's no pre-DSC structural analysis and that is a weakness of the Harrit et al paper?

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
surface spectra were generated for chips (a)-(d) before they were cross-sectioned, but weren't included in the paper. According to Farrer, similar contamination to Figure 14 was observed in those.
Oh really? Put up or shut up! Ask Farrer to show the data!

Oh, and while you are at it, there are a few more questions you might want to ask him (by the way: I asked them already in the post that you responded to - I wonder why you ignored them):
  • The Bentham paper says they were doing FTIR analysis on the chips and would show the results elsewhere. Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Harrit and Jones have said on several occasions that Farrer did TEM analysis on the particles in the red layer. They identified hematite (in particle sizes of 100-300nm a very common pignent, see McCrone, Delly: The Particle Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two, page 763, "Paint chips") Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Aren't you a bit suspicious that they did those tests, but never showed any results? Would be so nice to compare them Millette's...


Thanks for listening
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 22nd March 2012, 10:03 AM   #185
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Oystein apparently didn't notice the title of Scootle's article...
__________________
“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 22nd March 2012, 10:19 AM   #186
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
The paper is long enough as it is: 25 pages with 33 coloured illustrations - some of which fill an entire page. It could easily have been several times that with all the data they had. In fact, earlier versions of the paper were indeed longer, but the authors were told by peer-reviewers to keep the length to a minimum.
I'm sorry, did I miss the section of who peer-reviewed the paper? Also, I see the "not enough space" comment coming up regularly as of lately. Why not publish the results...wherever?

Instead of writing a blog about all the "issues" that they are writing about, why not just skip writing one, and put the results where the unwritten article would go. No extra space needed, and in fact, I will do them one better.

If they would like to send me the information I will even host it, in it's entirety. I can give it their very own URL with whatever title is available. "benthamftir.com", or anything like it.

I'm always willing to help...
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 22nd March 2012, 10:29 AM   #187
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
It's hilarious over at 911blogger. Do these truthers actually bother reading anything?

From dtg86.

Quote:
If the grey side is steel, it begs the question on how so much of it is so small and found in all his samples.
/facepalm. Err the paint is adhered to the rust. Rust is consistent with the oxide layer of a carbon steel. It's the rust that is flaking off creating these red-gray chips. Amazing how exactly the same thing is found on the Harrit et al samples too eh?

Quote:
Can I add that his paper does not reference any chain of custody for the samples?
Except on Page 2 in the introduction.

Quote:
Mr. Mohr was unable to gain access to any samples used in the Harrit study so four samples were chosen from the archives of MVA Scientific Consultants. These dust samples had been collected within a month of 11 September 2001 and sent to MVA for different projects. They are identified by the sample numbers shown below and on the New York City map shown in Figure 1.

Another one.

Quote:
Additionally, he can't identify the "resin" either. To me, this seems (if I may borrow jimd's phrase with no intention of ill meaning) "convenient and predictable."
Err except he does using FTIR. Funny how dtg86 is screaming at Millette for "not identifying the resin!!!!" but doesn't realise that in the Harrit et al paper they virtually ignore the binder altogether and no useful information is provided. Yay, you go truther. When will you hold your heroes to the same standards as you wish to hold Millette and everyone else?

Just found this doozy in the Bentham paper.
Quote:
The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.
which means it varies in weight and therefore screws all your DSC measurements up!

What's that thermite stuff again? Hold on let me check their own paper.
Quote:
The thermite reaction involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical reaction with iron oxide:
Jeez louise.
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 22nd March 2012, 10:39 AM   #188
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I'm sorry, did I miss the section of who peer-reviewed the paper? Also, I see the "not enough space" comment coming up regularly as of lately. Why not publish the results...wherever?

Instead of writing a blog about all the "issues" that they are writing about, why not just skip writing one, and put the results where the unwritten article would go. No extra space needed, and in fact, I will do them one better.

If they would like to send me the information I will even host it, in it's entirety. I can give it their very own URL with whatever title is available. "benthamftir.com", or anything like it.

I'm always willing to help...
So they have absolute, cast iron proof that there was thermite in the dust but they didn't have room to put it in a paper about thermite in the dust?
tsig 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 22nd March 2012, 10:44 AM   #189
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Hey ScootleRoyal - I guess that Tnemec Red 99 Primer paint is just contamination as well eh buddy.

Top one is Fig 14 (corrected to show Mg label) - you know the one you claim is heavily contaminated. Bottom one is Tnemec Red 99 primer paint. How do we know that the bottom one is Tnemec Red? Well this sample was obtained by Dr Jones from a memorial. It was analysed by Jones/Harrit etc and that very graph is used in Jones' talks. See my signature for link to the talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScY8c9THrTY 2.44 mins



Spot the similarities?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 22nd March 2012 at 10:52 AM.
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 22nd March 2012, 10:47 AM   #190
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I'm sorry, did I miss the section of who peer-reviewed the paper? Also, I see the "not enough space" comment coming up regularly as of lately. Why not publish the results...wherever?

Instead of writing a blog about all the "issues" that they are writing about, why not just skip writing one, and put the results where the unwritten article would go. No extra space needed, and in fact, I will do them one better.

If they would like to send me the information I will even host it, in it's entirety. I can give it their very own URL with whatever title is available. "benthamftir.com", or anything like it.

I'm always willing to help...
So lets see... I am proving that the WTC towers were blown up by thermite. An amazing earth shattering history changing event.
But the peer reviewer (aka truther buddy) told me that a lot of the really important data made the paper too lengthy. So let not release it. Even when truthers and debunkers alike are asking for this important information we should keep it to ourselves not post it on the internet and instead start researching man made earthquakes.

Same goes for the TEM test from 3 years ago. Release nothing. Say its important and on the way. But don't release it.

Yea, this is the sane thing to do.

Last edited by Kent1; 22nd March 2012 at 10:49 AM.
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 22nd March 2012, 10:54 AM   #191
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
As shown in the other thread, FTIR is obviously not the pertinent data here.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Millette also confirm that the red-gray chips are not Tnemec primer paint??
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 22nd March 2012 at 10:55 AM.
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 22nd March 2012, 11:12 AM   #192
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,045
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
As shown in the other thread, FTIR is obviously not the pertinent data here.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Millette also confirm that the red-gray chips are not Tnemec primer paint??
Correcting you when you're wrong would quickly turn into a full time job that would come with no pay.

How about you start replying to some of the information posted above instead of finding new ways to be proven wrong for a change?
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 22nd March 2012, 11:21 AM   #193
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Millette also confirm that the red-gray chips are not Tnemec primer paint??
Perhaps you could read these. From May 2009.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Well it's possible that it's a different paint that contains kaolinite and zinc that isn't NIST primer!

This is one of the reasons why qualitative analysis such as EDS is not always the best method to use for this type of work where we have no idea of the source of the sample and what's it's comprised of.

I don't think samples a,b,c,d are Tnemec (NIST) primer because the data doesn't suggest it is even if the Zn peak is mis-labelled as Na. Most anti- corrosion paints will contain Zn because it's there to do the same job as it does in galvanising of steel.

Really what is needed is a much better technique for the characterisation of the material. In the past I have suggested XRD. I've seen companies that will do the work quite cheaply and even at $100/hr it's not extortionate. The only problem with XRD is that you do need a big enough sample. However, Jones has over 70 samples and has broken some in half for analysis. The way to do it would be to contact a lab and discuss sizes.

There are also other techniques available such as SIMS, Auger microprobe, XPS so there are plenty to choose from. Much better than trying to figure out whether a Zn peak is Na or vice a versa.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer;4688163[HILITE
]No I don't think it's contaminated[/hilite]. Or certainly not to the extent that Harrit et al consider it. They broke chips in half and examined the clean face yet still found Na and K in Fig 11 and they also found Na, S, K and Ca in Fig 7c. So I don't see how these can be contaminants. We find similar elements in the "MEK chip's" red layer prior to soaking

corrected Fig 14

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=876

They also say underneath that figure



Yes, it is! Specifically Tnemec red primer paint.

I've discussed it before but it won't hurt again. We see Zn and Cr which would tally with Zinc Chromate - ZnCrO4 and we see Mg (now I've corrected the spectra) and Si and O which would tally with Talc - Mg3Si4O10(OH)2

That chip should have been broken in half and one used as a control the other soaked in MEK (if that floats your boat). High magnification SEM images would show talc or Zinc chromate particles. They did XEDS on it so they must have SEM photos too, just must.

The whole MEK test just doesn't look too much of a useful test to me. They should have done it on one of the samples a,b,c,d.

The weird thing is they tested another chip with MEK! I didn't realise this until the other day when re-reading the paper due to Henryco and his post.

It's hidden under Fig 32.



The soaking of this chip with MEK isn't mentioned anywhere else in the paper. There is an oddity with this chip because it has 3 layers and the gray layer doesn't contain Fe - Fig 33. This is an anomaly with all the other chips so why was this not investigated further before soaking or did they think they could dissolve the gray layer and remove the red one?

it's all so higgledy-piggledy. There is no method with regard to these tests.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I think it was an ingredient in paint in samples a,b,c,d. That paint is adhered to an Iron Oxide. The most likely scenario is that this oxide is from steel. When we look at other samples we actually see three layers as I've discussed before. The red layer, the gray oxide layer and then another layer that has all of the visual characteristics of a polycrystalline material namely a metal and the XEDS data from henryco shows that the candidate for this is steel.

However, as discussed above, I have shown that the Jones' chips are not all identical. The red layer differes across chips and the grey layer differs across chips. That would suggest multiple sources of different material. Therefore we can't rule out that the oxide layer is part of something else.

Your welcome. Yes they do. In my reply to Henryco I talk about different red paints. And we can discuss different steels with red paint on them in the building. Red paint on steel doesn't have to specifically be Tnemec red primer on A36 structural steel. It's easy to get sucked into just one small area.

Which is why we would expect it to shown in any XEDS spectra. Samples a,b,c,d don't show this. But another sample does; the one subjected to MEK. See above post again.

I'll state it again - I'm of the opinion that samples a,b,c,d show a red paint attached to an iron oxide, but that paint is not Tnemec red primer paint. There is no kaolin in Tnemec red and we don't see any ZnCrO4 or talc in the SEM photos. This doesn't mean it's thermite all I'm saying is that it the data points to red paint adhered to oxidised steel. Hell it could be material from fire trucks for all we know (although I doubt it because paints on vehicles have very distinct multiple layers and this would be obvious but you get my point).

Unfortunately they don't provide us with a detailed SEM image of the "MEK chip", they just say it's contaminated. I'd love to see a few high magnification SEM images of this chip but I doubt we ever will.

Could it be electronic shielding? I don't know because I would need more info with regard iron oxide and it's purpose in that role.

I think we have multiple materials from multiple sources. This is why the characterisation is so important. It separates the wheat from the chaff.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you. I was looking for the exact same data and couldn't find it. I don't think you have made a mistake. I just wanted more information so that I could see how you have calculated the figure.

OK - I'll go back and check. Thanks. I'm not familiar with Watt/gram - kJ/g, Kcal/g, Kcal/mol and kJ/mol make more sense to me.

Thanks, I shall have a look at the link. It is annoying that alot of information is not free. I can get some of it at work due to our membership of some journals but the passwords are connected with the IP address for work machines so I can't use it outside of work.

Yes. This is one of the reasons that I criticize the paper for. They do not seem to have performed a correct characterisation of the material that they have removed from the dust via a magnet.

My posts previously in this thread discuss that. See

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=23
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4&postcount=24
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=36

What is annoying is they do not do what you did when taking XEDS analysis - that is show on the sample a cross marking the spot. Their SEM skills are poor imho.

I also made a mistake in the table which you helped point out - seems no one else checks any of my work and actually has the paper open when discussing or reading the posts on this thread so they make sure what is said tallies.

I've updated the table to take this into account.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=1000

How many people realise that there are atleast 10 samples discussed in the paper? Many of these samples are different in character.

I understand the argument with regard to the Zn and Cr and how that will relate the chips to Tnemec red primer.

I want to write a sentence and I want everyone to read it out loud. If people can understand why I have written this sentence then they will understand how it relates to the samples. I shall then comment further.

"There is only one red paint in the world, it is manufactured by Tnemec, who have sole rights to produce this paint and they call this paint 99 red."

I want people to read it again. Out loud.

It's not true is it? There are hundreds and thousands of paints manufactured by many companies all over the world. Why would only one paint be used in all of the buildings that suffered damage or collapsed that day? We could be talking dozens of red paints painted on hundreds of surfaces. We should look at Tnemec red primer, but we shouldn't concentrate on that being the only source for paint.

Samples a,b,c,d, do not have the required elements in their red layers to match Tnemec red primer paint. Infact we would see talc particles and ZnCrO4 in the paint if it was. That would be the tell tale sign and we would have XEDS data to match.

However, there IS another sample (luke, it's your sister ) that does have an XEDS spectrum with all of those elements in. I bet it's a pretty good match too. So which sample is it. In the above table it is labelled as the MEK sample.

I have corrected Harrit et al's XEDS spectra for that sample because they crucially miss out two element peaks, namely Mg and K. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=36

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=876

and this does not match any of the following by a very long way

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=874

Therefore sample in Fig 13, what I call the "MEK chip" (because Harrit et al haven't bothered to label their specimens apart from a,b,c,d -another bad mark against them) is NOT the same as sample a-d.

Red layer MEK chip ≠ a, b, c, d.


We know that the MEK chip was looked at in the SEM. We know the composition of the red layer is vastly different. So why are we not shown a detailed SEM image that shows that this red layer is exactly the same as for chips a,b,c,d? They claim contamination, but provide no proof of contamination. This is not professional. We could easily rule out Tnemec paint as the source because this MEK chip would not contain talc or ZnCrO4. We are not shown a detailed SEM image of this MEK chip's red layer, instead they claim it to be the same and wave anything else away as contamination. That's unprofessional. Show us the contamination with a SEM image.

I think that the best explanation is that the red layer in the MEK chip is Tnemec red primer paint. I think that the samples a,b,c,d are red paint, but not Tnemec red primer paint. I hope that makes it clear for everyone.

This is the reason why characterisation of the chips is so important. Jones separated 69 red/gray chips and another 15 chips from the dust. He should have produced a proper paper characterising these chips before any further work took place.

Why did they pick certain chips to investigate and not others? Why was the chip in Fig 32 not used in the DSC test? They say it has a grey layer of C and O, not Fe, O and C. What was the reasoning behind choosing what they did?

In the Science forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140426 they hammer the lack of custody with regard to the samples and no wonder. I've shown people that there is a difference between chips yet Jones and his fellows use a simplistic idea to characterise the chips

Red layer = thermite
Gray layer = err dunno, needs more investigation.

And that about sums up the paper. The samples shown are not consistent between the red layers. The samples shown are not consistent in the gray layers. How can they then claim that they are all the same thermite?

From their own paper.

This is astounding. How can they claim thermite and then say that?

Sorry for the long reply. I've got others to reply to and I suspect they will be long too.
Yes we know that these samples are unlikely to be Tnemec Red. We expect Dr Millette to find chips that are not Tnemec Red. Yes we expect him to say the samples that he matches to Harrit's samples a-d are not Tnemec red for the simple reason they are not Tnemec Red!!

3 years Ergo, 3 years and you still do not understand. Why do you not understand? It is very simple.

Harrit et al

Chips a-d - NOT Tnemec.
Chip soaked in MEK - IS Tnemec.

Millette

Chips analysed have same EDX and SEM characteristics as Chips a-d above.
Chips analysed in FTIR and TEM-SAED - NOT Tnemec.

See easy isn't it? Now if you ask "so what are they?" then there is a whole thread dedicated to that here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=214739 which you have posted in.
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 22nd March 2012, 11:42 AM   #194
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,243
Frank Legge will ask for FTIR+TEM data

Ahhhh he said it:

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-...comment-256208
Originally Posted by Frank Legge
...I will see what I can find out about the FTIR and TEM work.
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 22nd March 2012, 11:47 AM   #195
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post

Yes we know that these samples are unlikely to be Tnemec Red. We expect Dr Millette to find chips that are not Tnemec Red. Yes we expect him to say the samples that he matches to Harrit's samples a-d are not Tnemec red for the simple reason they are not Tnemec Red!!
. . .

It is very simple.

Harrit et al

Chips a-d - NOT Tnemec.
Chip soaked in MEK - IS Tnemec.
Lol. Your last statement is simply something anonymous 9/11 internet debunkers assert. You have no proof; you have done no tests. Harrit and Jones have done tests. When they soak Tnemec in MEK, it dissolves. As Harrit points out, it also clearly doesn't burn at 430 deg C.



Quote:
Millette

Chips analysed have same EDX and SEM characteristics as Chips a-d above.
Chips analysed in FTIR and TEM-SAED - NOT Tnemec.
Well, I guess the anonymous 9/11 internet bedunker brigade needs to let James Millette know. Because he confirms his results are also not consistent with the Tnemec primer paint.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 22nd March 2012 at 11:48 AM.
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 22nd March 2012, 11:50 AM   #196
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Why do you care, since you've just confirmed that FTIR cannot determine elemental aluminum?
__________________
“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 22nd March 2012, 11:58 AM   #197
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
The goalpost shifting on this issue must be exhausting for our bedunker friends. I wonder what they'll do when they find out it's not LaClede paint either.
__________________
“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 22nd March 2012, 12:05 PM   #198
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The goalpost shifting on this issue must be exhausting for our bedunker friends. I wonder what they'll do when they find out it's not LaClede paint either.
What are you doing now you know it's not thermetic? (as confirmed by the Harrit paper).
__________________
"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
DGM 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 22nd March 2012, 12:31 PM   #199
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol. Your last statement is simply something anonymous 9/11 internet debunkers assert. You have no proof; you have done no tests. Harrit and Jones have done tests. When they soak Tnemec in MEK, it dissolves. As Harrit points out, it also clearly doesn't burn at 430 deg C.
Been through that 10,000 times.

1. Don't need to do tests I can read. I can also read data. I have the knowledge and skill and experience that you lack to be able to interpret that data competently and have done so hundreds of times. You are merely incompetent and ignorant in absolutely everything on this subject. Proof is in my sig.

2. The paint they claimed they soaked which dissolved was from the BYU stadium. You know this.

3. No one knows what samples they put in the DSC apart from Farrer. If you know what samples they put in the DSC then tell us.

Go here - it's only a few posts above this one http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=189

Same stuff. Are you like Frank Legge?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, I guess the anonymous 9/11 internet bedunker brigade needs to let James Millette know. Because he confirms his results are also not consistent with the Tnemec primer paint.
You seem to have severe trouble with reading and comprehension. Millette already knows this. Again it's all very, very simple. It's simply pattern spotting. If you had read the preliminary report then you would understand this.

Quote:
The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.
Do you actually understand what that means?

It's very simple.

1. Separate chips from dust using a magnet - just like Harrit.
2. Analyse chips with SEM EDX - just like Harrit.
3. Chips with EDX spectra that match spectra data from Harrit et al are to be separated.
4. Separated chips to be analysed further.

Ergo - do you agree that all of these 4 spectra are essentially the same material?

Yes/No


Last edited by Sunstealer; 22nd March 2012 at 12:33 PM.
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 22nd March 2012, 12:43 PM   #200
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,140
I've never seen someone so clearly clueless think he's got it all together.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 10:31 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.