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 Chris Mohr , james millette , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , richard gage , steven jones , thermite , wtc dust

Reply
Old 16th June 2015, 06:25 AM   #121
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ziggi, try me. Challenge the content of what I say without personal attack and see how I respond. In the meantime, I know you will be personally attacked here, and you can respond to them as you will. But it is possible to create an oasis of respectful debate between us if you so choose.
So you have two points here: 1) See Figure 17, which I will do in the next couple days. However, if this constitutes proof of elemental aluminum in all of the chips, why did Mark Basile say elemental aluminum has not been proven?
2) I am incompetent to independently judge the scientific merits of the thermitic paper. A journalist does not avoid subjects just because s/he is not an expert in the field in question. We ask questions of experts. You know well that I have asked many people outside of this forum a slew of technical questions. There is good info here as well (tho not always). So I welcome critiques of what I have said by forum members here (and believe me, they have not been shy to critique me at times).
__________________
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 June 2015, 07:15 AM   #122
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
In the meantime, I still say there are some things in my video seriously challenge the thermitic paper. Anyone notice any of these? Ziggi went after the Jones quote but there are certainly others worthy of comment I think!
__________________
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 June 2015, 11:24 AM   #123
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
In the meantime, I still say there are some things in my video seriously challenge the thermitic paper. Anyone notice any of these? Ziggi went after the Jones quote but there are certainly others worthy of comment I think!
Off the top of my head, one aspect is that if aluminum based therrmite was used in quantity great enough that there remained enough unreacted thermite in the dust to be found so readily by Jones et al, then we should also see a large concentration of aluminum oxides in the dust. AFAIK that is not in evidence, so where did all that AlOx go?
jaydeehess 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 June 2015, 11:29 AM   #124
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
I'm interested in what figure 17 is, and more to the point, what is said about it in the text of the paper.
Further to that though is, if Chris' quote from Jones is out of context, then what exactly is the context it should be viewed in? What else did he say in conjunction to that quote, that changes the context 180 degrees from what Chris indicates about it?
jaydeehess 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 June 2015, 01:08 PM   #125
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I'm interested in what figure 17 is, and more to the point, what is said about it in the text of the paper.
It belongs to the MEK-soaked chip. As is well known, the authors failed to meet their burden of proof of showing that the MEK-soaked chip was the same kind as chips a-d.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 June 2015, 03:37 PM   #126
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It belongs to the MEK-soaked chip. As is well known, the authors failed to meet their burden of proof of showing that the MEK-soaked chip was the same kind as chips a-d.
Assume I have paid very little attention to the subject for quite some time and have forgotten many of the details. Since its true and all.

I recall they soaked some chips in MEK, for what purpose I forget. I also recall that there was quite a divergence between the chips in energy o/p and other factors.

How does this tie in with finding elemental aluminum though. Ziggi equates several aspects concluding =aluminum. However how does that follow on from figure 17, or the text associated with it, and how is it reconciled with Jones' statement referring to lack of aluminum.

Most important, and directed at Ziggi, what is the allegedly true context of the Jones quote that Chris used.


It's one thing to claim out of context, but without actually explaining and documenting the actual context its nothing more that a bald claim. That said, if Ziggi has done so then I'd be interested in a link to that post(s).

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th June 2015 at 03:39 PM.
jaydeehess 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 June 2015, 04:52 PM   #127
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ziggi, try me. Challenge the content of what I say without personal attack and see how I respond..
Chris I donīt time for this so lets get straight ot the point

1) I have explained to you what Jones meant with his XRD comment and how you misrepresented it to fit your wish - for the second time.
2) The only thing you can do as a journalist, is to acknowledge what Harrit et al say in their paper, and specifically in this case that they say they identify pure aluminum in the red layer of the chips. You can go straight to the conclusion part to read that announcement in plain non-technical English. It does not matter that you donīt have the technical skills to judge Harritīs paper, and that includes Figure 17. You do not have to understand them to report what they say.

....

In both 1) and 2) the only thing you can do is to honestly acknowledge and represent what these men say themselves. You cannot put your spin on it or claim they said something else entirely, just because you may not agree with their conclusions. If I went around the internet claiming that Millette found aluminum and that Chris Mohr has admitted that, you would get angry at me for misrepresenting your comments and quotes, and you would probably call me a liar. Correct?

Last edited by Ziggi; 16th June 2015 at 04:55 PM.
Ziggi 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 June 2015, 05:02 PM   #128
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,305
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris I donīt time for this so lets get straight ot the point
One would think that you, being one of the very few people in the world that are supporting this conclusion would make time.

That would be if you expect an audience past what is seated in the choir.
__________________
"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 16th June 2015, 07:50 PM   #129
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
One would think that you, being one of the very few people in the world that are supporting this conclusion would make time.

That would be if you expect an audience past what is seated in the choir.
I am wondering why the high aluminum peak could not have come from naturally occurring
Aluminum hydroxide, in kaolin clay.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 June 2015, 08:31 PM   #130
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 630
Ziggi...really get a clue...it is not thermite. You can hand wave and stomp your feet all you want, but you cannot turn primer paint into thermite.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 June 2015, 09:00 PM   #131
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris I donīt time for this so lets get straight ot the point

1) I have explained to you what Jones meant with his XRD comment and how you misrepresented it to fit your wish - for the second time.
2) The only thing you can do as a journalist, is to acknowledge what Harrit et al say in their paper, and specifically in this case that they say they identify pure aluminum in the red layer of the chips. You can go straight to the conclusion part to read that announcement in plain non-technical English. It does not matter that you donīt have the technical skills to judge Harritīs paper, and that includes Figure 17. You do not have to understand them to report what they say.

....

In both 1) and 2) the only thing you can do is to honestly acknowledge and represent what these men say themselves. You cannot put your spin on it or claim they said something else entirely, just because you may not agree with their conclusions. If I went around the internet claiming that Millette found aluminum and that Chris Mohr has admitted that, you would get angry at me for misrepresenting your comments and quotes, and you would probably call me a liar. Correct?
One unduplicated reading is of little significant finding, and the paper is deceptive, in applying
That reading to all the chips. Contamination could account for that reading, the only way it
Could be of significant finding is though multiple replication.
All other attempts to prove and verify that reading have failed, that is the whole point, no
Verification of finding. No significant finding shown that the chips are thermitic, not even
an attempt at a simple inert gas ignitions test.
You may in fact be only reading another Aluminum compound, like an aluminum hydroxide,
The point is the burden of proof is still on Harrit and Jones, to show multiple replications
Of findings on more than one sample.
So far if a thermitic chip was found and that is quite possible it could have merely been paint contaminated with a small amount of aluminum dust.
The claims of engineered explosives based on Harrit and Jones appear to be making a
Mountain out of a sink hole, by filling it with deceptive BS, until it is piled to the sky.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 16th June 2015 at 09:02 PM.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 June 2015, 09:55 PM   #132
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Here is what Jones/Harrit say about Figure 17: "The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a
layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable
to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum,
given the very high surface area to volume ratio of
these very fine particles." If I understand this correctly, one MEK-soaked chip showed a high reading for aluminum, much higher than oxygen for example and therefore this is evidence of elemental aluminum. Is this one of the chips a-d? Was this test also successfully done on the other four chips? I didn't find that anywhere.
When Jones did more studies (including Farrer's TEM), he said he was trying to resolve the question of elemental aluminum, and was not satisfied with the results. I still don't understand: if he is not satisfied, is he still fully 100% satisfied that one MEK-soaked chip (not a-d) with high aluminum reading fulfills his burden of proof of elementaql aluminum? Why did he do the other tests? I simply cannot understand this. I still read his comment as looking for more proof of elemental aluminum and finding no aluminum redings at all.
I acknowledge that I did make a mistake by claiming the iron-rich spheres were the only evidence they had. They have one MEK-soaked chip, not a-d, with a high aluminum reading. I will fix that error when I understand better a fuller context, such as why Basile have said no proof of elemental aluminum and Couannier said thermite could not be proven.
__________________
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 June 2015, 10:36 PM   #133
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Assume I have paid very little attention to the subject for quite some time and have forgotten many of the details. Since its true and all.
Ok, here's a quick summary.

They analyzed everything that was red and gray and was attracted by a magnet, and first commented on four specimens that looked like the same thing, each from a different dust sample. No one I know disputes that all four are the same thing. Then they reported on a fifth chip that also was red and gray and attracted to a magnet that yielded a very different spectrum. They attributed that to surface contamination, but failed to show said contamination and failed to provide a clean-cut pre-soaking spectrum, and all indications point to that chip being made of a kind of paint with an entirely different composition (the first four chips are believed to be LaClede Steel Company's joist primer and the fifth chip is believed to be Tnemec primer). That's the chip that fig. 17 comes from. They claimed that the MEK solvent separated the aluminium somehow.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 June 2015, 11:13 PM   #134
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
The Elephant in the room.

Ahem. It seems the real elephant in the toom is the shocking revelation of Jeff Farrar's responses to his colleagues, and to James Millette.

These are screen captures from Chris's video.



Jeffrey Farrar: “It is my belief that the burden of proof for this "thermite hypothesis" lies with the authors of the hypothesis. In fact, even the presence of thermite in the rubble does not prove that thermite was used to bring down the buildings.”




Jeffrey Farrar:“I am responsible for most of the SEM work. I also performed the DSC work. I have performed some TEM analysis, but have never released that data to anyone. I discussed some of my TEM findings with another of the authors of the Thermitic paper and it was suggested that perhaps I had mistakenly collected a "different" chip. This was in spite of the fact that the TEM specimen was prepared from the same chip that was used for many of the other tests. I have done very little research on the project since that time.”





Jeffrey Farrar: “At first read, it looks very well done. The chips they used look identical in appearance and in their chemical profile to the chips that we found. The particles they refer to as kaolin and Iron oxide are identical in appearance to the TEM and SEM images that I had acquired of the particles. They also have the same chemical profile (XEDS). Honestly, when I look at their images it is as though I'm looking at my own images of the particles.”


To me, this derails the Truthers' arguments bigtime. Ziggy can whine all he wants, but he cain't touch this.
DaveThomasNMSR 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 17th June 2015, 12:23 AM   #135
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Here is what Jones/Harrit say about Figure 17:
"The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a
layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles."
If I understand this correctly, one MEK-soaked chip showed a high reading for aluminum, much higher than oxygen for example and therefore this is evidence of elemental aluminum. Is this one of the chips a-d? Was this test also successfully done on the other four chips? I didn't find that anywhere.
When Jones did more studies (including Farrer's TEM), he said he was trying to resolve the question of elemental aluminum, and was not satisfied with the results. I still don't understand: if he is not satisfied, is he still fully 100% satisfied that one MEK-soaked chip (not a-d) with high aluminum reading fulfills his burden of proof of elementaql aluminum? Why did he do the other tests? I simply cannot understand this. I still read his comment as looking for more proof of elemental aluminum and finding no aluminum redings at all.
I acknowledge that I did make a mistake by claiming the iron-rich spheres were the only evidence they had. They have one MEK-soaked chip, not a-d, with a high aluminum reading. I will fix that error when I understand better a fuller context, such as why Basile have said no proof of elemental aluminum and Couannier said thermite could not be proven.
(I improved on the line breaks in the quote and indented the paragraph from Harrit et al)

For those who don't have the Harrit paper handy, here are the relevant Figures. First, for content, the XEDS-spectra of the first 4 chips they studied in depth, chips a-d (red layer):



The important thing to note is that all four chips have a very high peak for C, have peaks for Al and Si that are always very similar in hight, have also significant peaks for O and Fe - and nothing else! (Chip c has small peaks labeled for S, Ca and K. All have very small unlabeled signals. Those can justifiably be considered contamination). So this Fig. 7 gives us a good indication to think these four chips are made of the same material (A).
It is also important to know that this is not the only evidence Harrit et al present that chips a-d are the same material. They also show
(B) XEDS spectrum for the gray layer
(C) visual light microscopy photos
(D) Back-scattered electron microscope (BSE) images of pigments within the red layer
and these all turn out to be very similar on all four chips a-d.
They all contain little platelets, and Harrit et al have shown (Fig. 10 and 11) that the Al and Si are assiciated with these platelets, along with O which is found everywhere.
It turns out that the platelets look an awful lot like kaolin clay pigments; and kaolin has this property of being a compound with equal amounts of Al and Si along with O (and H).

All this work on chips a-d is of good quality and has been done by Jeff Farrer, who is an experienced electron microscope operator (in fact, he is the lab manager at BYU).


Now enter the infamous chip that was bathed in MEK for ... well, other purposes.

They did not show the composition of the gray layer (B), did not photograph it before the MEK-treatmentm, did not show any of the finer pigments within the red layer (D), and the XEDS spectrum of the red layer (A) looks very different from that of chips a-d:



Notice that the Al-peak is much smaller than the Si-peak, and that, in addition to what we saw in chips a-d, we have Ca, S, Zi and Cr all rather significant, plus an unlabeled peak for Mg. This is not a match for chips a-d at all. Truthers speculate that this result may be due to contamination, as they didn't wash the chip before taking the spectrum. Conceivable, but not proven.

So of all the data we have to compare chips a-d with the MEK chip, nothing points to this chip being the same material, except that it's red and gray and attracted to a magnet. In particular, there is no evidence that this chip, too, contains those platelets with equal Al- and Si-content.


Since the quality of the images is much worse than those of chips a-d, I am convinced these tests on the MEK have been done by Steven Jones or his graduate student Farnsworth, both of whom not experienced electron microscope operators.

Pointing the XEDS beam at some spots in the red layer after soaking, they found these spectra in two separate spots:



The first has much Si, practically no Al; the second vice versa.
This indicates that Si and Al are not associated with each other throughout the chip. Cool. The second spectrum shows so much Al and so little O that indeed it seems reasonable to conclude that not all of the Al is oxidized.

This result is interesting, but has a few problems:
- The overall composition of the chip (Fig 14) has so little Al (under 2%) that it is hard to think of this as "thermitic"
- They don't show where in the chip the Al-rich spot is. I have a few ideas about how such a result could come about (from the sample holder; or from a sample surface at a very oblique angle relative to the electron beam/detector, for they did not prepare the specimen properly)
- It's the only XEDS spectrum in the paper done with a mere 10 kV electron beam (usually they used 20 kV)

So while I accept that we an indication that one particular chip contains at least one Al-rich particle, this finding is weak and stands alone without any corroboration.


So Chris is absolutely right to look for corroboration outside of the paper and this single, weak finding, and note that there is absolutely none whatsoever, not even from Jones and Farrer themselves who were specifically looking for Al.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 17th June 2015, 05:57 AM   #136
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So Chris is absolutely right to look for corroboration outside of the paper and this single, weak finding, and note that there is absolutely none whatsoever, not even from Jones and Farrer themselves who were specifically looking for Al.
Which, I believe, is how the Jones quote is to be understood. He wasn't really fully satisfied with the poor work he did in the paper and looked for corroboration, finding none.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 17th June 2015, 06:28 AM   #137
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Which, I believe, is how the Jones quote is to be understood. He wasn't really fully satisfied with the poor work he did in the paper and looked for corroboration, finding none.
Exactly no corroborated finding when spacificly looking for elemental aluminum,
Means the claim of elemental aluminum is unverified in the Jones and Harrit paper.
No inert gas test under argon also, so it can not be said that the red grey chips are thermitic,
as the energy profile and everything else are all wrong for a thermitic material.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 17th June 2015, 07:39 AM   #138
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Here is what Jones/Harrit say about Figure 17: "The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a
region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using
a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the
aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately
a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum
may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account
for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must
therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is
an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a
layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable
to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum,
given the very high surface area to volume ratio of
these very fine particles." If I understand this correctly, one MEK-soaked chip showed a high reading for aluminum, much higher than oxygen for example and therefore this is evidence of elemental aluminum. Is this one of the chips a-d? Was this test also successfully done on the other four chips? I didn't find that anywhere.
When Jones did more studies (including Farrer's TEM), he said he was trying to resolve the question of elemental aluminum, and was not satisfied with the results. I still don't understand: if he is not satisfied, is he still fully 100% satisfied that one MEK-soaked chip (not a-d) with high aluminum reading fulfills his burden of proof of elementaql aluminum? Why did he do the other tests? I simply cannot understand this. I still read his comment as looking for more proof of elemental aluminum and finding no aluminum redings at all.
I acknowledge that I did make a mistake by claiming the iron-rich spheres were the only evidence they had. They have one MEK-soaked chip, not a-d, with a high aluminum reading. I will fix that error when I understand better a fuller context, such as why Basile have said no proof of elemental aluminum and Couannier said thermite could not be proven.
Chris, you are only chattering to yourself, not talking to me. You have ignored everything I have said so far, and this way weīll only end up going in circles, just like when I attempted to talk to you via email. My last post to you was nbr 127 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=127

If you want to continue you have have read it and give a clear answer.
Ziggi 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 17th June 2015, 09:53 AM   #139
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris, you are only chattering to yourself, not talking to me. You have ignored everything I have said so far, and this way weīll only end up going in circles, just like when I attempted to talk to you via email. My last post to you was nbr 127 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=127

If you want to continue you have have read it and give a clear answer.
Ziggi, you believe in a fantasy of thermite; there was no thermite used on 911 to destroy the WTC. The paper by Jones clearly shows they have no evidence to prove they found thermite. They say so clearly, all it takes is reading comprehension. Jones fooled a fringe few with BS, ignoring the 19 terrorists murder of thousands, Jones made up a fantasy to suit some bias.

Jones waves his hands for the fantasy of thermite, fools those who have no skills in science, reading, and logic.
Quote:
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
Jones takes BS to support his fantasy of thermite he made up years earlier and fools a few conspiracy theorists. Now Jones is doing more woo, and left 911 truth, the movement based on lies and ignorance; aka, no truth.

I found the paper funny, as I could see evidence of clay in their work. The iron microspheres was funny too.

To be fooled by old men in a fake movement is what happens to gullible people; but the moment you figure out Jones lied, will be a great thing; to wake up to reality; like seeing colors appear out of the drabness of hypoxia when you are at 25,000 feet pressure altitude, and take your first deep breath of pure oxygen...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 17th June 2015 at 10:17 AM.
beachnut 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 17th June 2015, 11:01 AM   #140
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Ok, here's a quick summary.

They analyzed everything that was red and gray and was attracted by a magnet, and first commented on four specimens that looked like the same thing, each from a different dust sample. No one I know disputes that all four are the same thing. Then they reported on a fifth chip that also was red and gray and attracted to a magnet that yielded a very different spectrum. They attributed that to surface contamination, but failed to show said contamination and failed to provide a clean-cut pre-soaking spectrum, and all indications point to that chip being made of a kind of paint with an entirely different composition (the first four chips are believed to be LaClede Steel Company's joist primer and the fifth chip is believed to be Tnemec primer). That's the chip that fig. 17 comes from. They claimed that the MEK solvent separated the aluminium somehow.
Thank you. Nice and consise.
Very odd of Jones to not be satisfied with the aluminum finding and then conclude sufficient elemental aluminum to equate to thermite's presence in one sample that is not specified as being typical of the other samples.
I am by no means a chemist and had some trouble following the argument the first time around. However I do recall thinking that it seemed rather haphazard. The local radio station has an online presence. Their articles online are often badly put together, sometimes so bad that it's hard to discern just what the #### they are trying to say. THAT is how I feel about this study.

Why the H did they not take 20 minutes to set up an attempt to ignite in an inert atmosphere at the very, very least!?!?
jaydeehess 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 17th June 2015, 11:07 AM   #141
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,812
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris, you are only chattering to yourself, not talking to me. You have ignored everything I have said so far, and this way weīll only end up going in circles, just like when I attempted to talk to you via email. My last post to you was nbr 127 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=127

If you want to continue you have have read it and give a clear answer.
For others, could you tell us the post number when you explained exactly the true context of Jones' quote, please.

If it's contained only in the email, and Chris is amenable, then post it here please.

You must admit that as it stands Jones words, as well as the others Chris quotes, do imply the opposite of the definitive conclusion of elemental aluminum.
Also wondering why the spike cannot be the aluminum content of AlOH such as found in clay. ETA: or for that matter, non-oxide compounds of aluminum. I understood that aluminum is quite 'happy' to bond with many other elements.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th June 2015 at 12:02 PM.
jaydeehess 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 17th June 2015, 11:14 AM   #142
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,305
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

Why the H did they not take 20 minutes to set up an attempt to ignite in an inert atmosphere at the very, very least!?!?
For the same reason they dismissed the TEM findings (according to Farrar). They didn't want to do anything that could be seen as conclusive.

Personally, I think they did do the test and didn't like the results, just like the TEM.
__________________
"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 18th June 2015, 09:08 AM   #143
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ziggi I think I'm beginning to understand our misunderstanding. In our private emails from last year, I obviously misunderstood the difference between "no aluminum" and "no elemental aluminum." You actually clarified that for me, and to my knowledge there is no such confusion in what I said surrounding the Jones quote in this video. Here is the text of what I actually said in the video:
Quote:
Four: After 5 years, Harrit’s team has not released data from tests that would directly identify chemical bindings and crystal structure.
Kevin Ryan performed an FTIR analysis on the chips, but much of this critical data has been withheld.
[Slide 10] TEM: (Picture from Millette) Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) uses an electron microscope to collect data on a specimen.
(Read) TEM images yield excellent information for chemical analysis. TEM-data collected by lead experimenter Jeffrey Farrer is not available for scrutiny. I asked Jeff Farrer about this and he told me and another skeptic in his emails, [SLIDE 11] “I am responsible for most of the SEM work. I also performed the DSC work. I have performed some TEM analysis, but have never released that data to anyone. I discussed some of my TEM findings with another of the authors of the Thermitic paper and it was suggested that perhaps I had mistakenly collected a "different" chip. This was in spite of the fact that the TEM specimen was prepared from the same chip that was used for many of the other tests. I have done very little research on the project since that time.”
Steven Jones has talked about the TEM test on 911Blogger, and wrote, “After our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.”
Jim Millette simply reported the same findings and concluded in his report, “There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.” [SLIDE]
In the meantime, fellow researcher Niels Harrit says the tests “confirm the presence of aluminum in the red material. If money and time permit, the TEM studies may be completed and published… To suggest that there is no aluminum in the red layer is ludicrous."
Where in this passage do I claim "no aluminum"? Nowhere. The one mistake of mine I have found around this issue is that I said that all they have is iron-rich spheres. But as you pointed out, recently and in emails last year, Figure 17 of the one MEK-soaked chip does show a high reading for aluminum. Those are the only two shreds of evidence you gave me last year for elemental aluminum. So I will make that correction.
You also chided me for not continuing the Jones quote, which continues as follows: "...He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...ezko-0203.html . I'll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings."
This is a link to talking about amorphous aluminum alloys.
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-0...comment-257482
This part of the quote was not about elemental aluminum; it was a speculation about why the test turned up nothing at all. You say the Jones team is attempting to pin down this unusual form of aluminum, which has not been identified. You claim they are using more sophisticated techniques than the XEDS in the thermitic paper to get more detailed information about the aluminum discovered in the paper. I say they have not met their burden of proof in their attempts to demonstrate elemental aluminum.
In conclusion, the primary point of that part of the video is reporting on the fact that TEM and FTIR data has been withheld. Jones himself brought up the elemental aluminum issue, which apparently neither Farrer's TEM nor their new tests could prove. I then quote Millette's simple conclusion: no elemental aluminum, no thermite. But note that I also quote Harrit as saying that the idea that there is no aluminum in the chips at all is ludicrous. For months now I have understood that the real issue is no proof of elemental aluminum (the one MEK-soaked chip stands alone as the closest thing they have to direct evidence).
I pored through the entire text of my video to see if I ever used the term "no aluminum," and except when quoting others, there is this one slide where I used a kind of slogan: "The absolute lack of discernable elemental aluminum positively rules out the possibility that the chips are thermite of any nature. Why? Thermite reaction is iron oxide plus elemental aluminum, the oxygen moves from the iron to the aluminum, creating real high temperatures and a residue of iron and aluminum oxide. No aluminum, no thermite." But even here I make clear I am referring to elemental aluminum.
So how exactly have I lifted the Jones quote out of context and made it sound like the opposite of what he meant? As much as possible, I just quoted him, Farrer, Harrit and Millette in this section. I didn't carry the quote further to include his speculations. Are you saying I failed to say that the paper concludes there is thermite in the dust? That would seem redundant and unnecessary and obvious, don't you agree? Do you have any thoughts on the other three quotes I offered in this section?
When this exchange is over, I expect you will write another article attacking my video. Please don't ignore the parts that are inconvenient, such as the careful, peer-review-backed explanations of the two fire chemists about how near-adiabatic temperatures on a micro-scale, eutectic reactions with steel and alumkinum, and other phenomena can explin the iron-rich spheres. We went back and forth on that for months, I know, and you accused me of talking in circles. I refused to accept your statemengt that ONLY bulk temperatures above the melting point of steel or iron could create these microspheres, and my reseacrh (independent of this forum) has demonstrated your claims to be inadequate to explain the real-world phenomena of fire chemistry. I was buying time until I could get a good answer for you.
But once again: how have I misquoted or distorted what Jones said? Where in my video do I claim no aluminum at all, of any form? I beliegve it is YOU who distorted what I said by inserting a misundestanding I had a year ago --which you yourself corrected-- into the current conversation!
__________________
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 18th June 2015, 09:14 AM   #144
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
- They don't show where in the chip the Al-rich spot is. I have a few ideas about how such a result could come about (from the sample holder; or from a sample surface at a very oblique angle relative to the electron beam/detector, for they did not prepare the specimen properly)
- It's the only XEDS spectrum in the paper done with a mere 10 kV electron beam (usually they used 20 kV)
I think at the time we noted that it could well be the sample holder that is being detected.

Here is Fig 17.



Iirc one of the most common materials SEM sample detectors are machined from is 6061 aluminium alloy.

You'll see similar Mg and Si peaks for 6061 alloy (especially on a surface that's been cleaned as very mild etching takes place, which is why you have to used approved cleaners otherwise you get all that black stuff develop)

Here are some EDX spectra of 6061.

http://prr.hec.gov.pk/chapters/255S-4.pdf - 1st fig, 2nd page.
http://www.theaic.org/pub_thechemist...Article-2.html
http://file.scirp.org/Html/2-2710067_33948.htm - half way down, Fig 2 (actually and MMC but based on 6061).
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/7/8/5711/htm - half way down.
http://tinyurl.com/qdr9cqd - Page 23 Fig d)

Have you still got your EDX Monte-Carlo program?

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So while I accept that we an indication that one particular chip contains at least one Al-rich particle, this finding is weak and stands alone without any corroboration.
It's very weak. Oxygen ratios are very difficult to ascertain especially from very small particles due to the nature of the interaction of the electron beam with the sample.

It's interesting to note that when they thought they'd found these pure aluminium particles they didn't think, "Yowsers! Lets up the magnification and get some SEM photos and do some more EDX work focusing on a few of these particles. It will only take another hour max".

Nope, instead they leave it as a single data point and then make huge leaps of assumption from it.
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 18th June 2015, 10:34 AM   #145
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ziggi I think I'm beginning to understand our misunderstanding. In our private emails from last year, I obviously misunderstood the difference between "no aluminum" and "no elemental aluminum." You actually clarified that for me, and to my knowledge there is no such confusion in what I said surrounding the Jones quote in this video. Here is the text of what I actually said in the video:

Where in this passage do I claim "no aluminum"? Nowhere. The one mistake of mine I have found around this issue is that I said that all they have is iron-rich spheres. But as you pointed out, recently and in emails last year, Figure 17 of the one MEK-soaked chip does show a high reading for aluminum. Those are the only two shreds of evidence you gave me last year for elemental aluminum. So I will make that correction.
You also chided me for not continuing the Jones quote, which continues as follows: "...He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us. There are possible explanations for this; see for example http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...ezko-0203.html . I'll leave it at that for now. I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings."
This is a link to talking about amorphous aluminum alloys.
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-0...comment-257482
This part of the quote was not about elemental aluminum; it was a speculation about why the test turned up nothing at all. You say the Jones team is attempting to pin down this unusual form of aluminum, which has not been identified. You claim they are using more sophisticated techniques than the XEDS in the thermitic paper to get more detailed information about the aluminum discovered in the paper. I say they have not met their burden of proof in their attempts to demonstrate elemental aluminum.
In conclusion, the primary point of that part of the video is reporting on the fact that TEM and FTIR data has been withheld. Jones himself brought up the elemental aluminum issue, which apparently neither Farrer's TEM nor their new tests could prove. I then quote Millette's simple conclusion: no elemental aluminum, no thermite. But note that I also quote Harrit as saying that the idea that there is no aluminum in the chips at all is ludicrous. For months now I have understood that the real issue is no proof of elemental aluminum (the one MEK-soaked chip stands alone as the closest thing they have to direct evidence).
I pored through the entire text of my video to see if I ever used the term "no aluminum," and except when quoting others, there is this one slide where I used a kind of slogan: "The absolute lack of discernable elemental aluminum positively rules out the possibility that the chips are thermite of any nature. Why? Thermite reaction is iron oxide plus elemental aluminum, the oxygen moves from the iron to the aluminum, creating real high temperatures and a residue of iron and aluminum oxide. No aluminum, no thermite." But even here I make clear I am referring to elemental aluminum.
So how exactly have I lifted the Jones quote out of context and made it sound like the opposite of what he meant? As much as possible, I just quoted him, Farrer, Harrit and Millette in this section. I didn't carry the quote further to include his speculations. Are you saying I failed to say that the paper concludes there is thermite in the dust? That would seem redundant and unnecessary and obvious, don't you agree? Do you have any thoughts on the other three quotes I offered in this section?
When this exchange is over, I expect you will write another article attacking my video. Please don't ignore the parts that are inconvenient, such as the careful, peer-review-backed explanations of the two fire chemists about how near-adiabatic temperatures on a micro-scale, eutectic reactions with steel and alumkinum, and other phenomena can explin the iron-rich spheres. We went back and forth on that for months, I know, and you accused me of talking in circles. I refused to accept your statemengt that ONLY bulk temperatures above the melting point of steel or iron could create these microspheres, and my reseacrh (independent of this forum) has demonstrated your claims to be inadequate to explain the real-world phenomena of fire chemistry. I was buying time until I could get a good answer for you.
But once again: how have I misquoted or distorted what Jones said? Where in my video do I claim no aluminum at all, of any form? I beliegve it is YOU who distorted what I said by inserting a misundestanding I had a year ago --which you yourself corrected-- into the current conversation!
Chris I know this is difficult for you, but this is ridiculous. My last reply to you still stands unanswered, just like all the other ones. Repeated and hilited for your convenience:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=138
Quote:
Chris, you are only chattering to yourself, not talking to me. You have ignored everything I have said so far, and this way weīll only end up going in circles, just like when I attempted to talk to you via email. My last post to you was nbr 127 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=127

If you want to continue you have have read it and give a clear answer.
Ziggi 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 18th June 2015, 10:47 AM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I think at the time we noted that it could well be the sample holder that is being detected.
I said so. Consider Fig. 15, which shows "XEDS maps [that] were acquired from the swollen red material at a beam energy of 10 kV, in order to determine the locations of various elements following the MEK treatment."

XEDS maps for five elements, which was done at


The paper explains:
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
The data shown in Fig. (15) illustrate regions where iron, aluminum and silicon are concentrated. Furthermore, the data indicate that wherever silicon or iron is concentrated, oxygen is also concentrated. On the other hand, there also exist regions where the aluminum is concentrated but where the oxygen may not accompany it commensurately.
Note that the map has plenty of pixels for Al outside of the chip, where the sample holder is. It also shows some O and C for the sample holder, and very few (but more than zero!) pixels for Si and Fe. This is quite consistent with the distribution of elements shown on Fig 17, which was also done at 10 kV:



As I said, Fig. 17 is the only XEDS spectrum done at 10 kV, almost all of the others were done at 20 kV, Fig. 18 was done at 15 kV.
I have a hunch that Fig 17 was taken straight from the 10 kV scan they did for the XEDS map in Fig 15: Essentially, an XEDS map is simply a collection of many small spot, low sample rate XEDS spectra, compiled as an image showing where selected elements exceed certain predetermined thresholds. I am convinced the XEDS software gives you an individual spectrum for any spot you might select. Perhaps Jones searched for the highest Al-count of all map spots, and pulled the data set for that spot, without regard for where it actually is; and it may very well be outside of the chip.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Iirc one of the most common materials SEM sample detectors are machined from is 6061 aluminium alloy.
Can you find a source confirming this? You may not recall correctly...

I remember vaguely having discussed this, and/or read about this, with truthers in the past - perhaps even with Ziggi, who may have been quoting Jones or Harrit. Or was it when I mailed with Niels Harrit? Been a few years, and I wouldn't know where to look (lost my email-account from back then, too). What I remember is that there was a claim that the sample holder was actually an Al-Mg alloy; I believed it would have a higher Mg content than AA6061 (where Mg is barely 1%).

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
You'll see similar Mg and Si peaks for 6061 alloy (especially on a surface that's been cleaned as very mild etching takes place, which is why you have to used approved cleaners otherwise you get all that black stuff develop)

Here are some EDX spectra of 6061.

http://prr.hec.gov.pk/chapters/255S-4.pdf - 1st fig, 2nd page.
http://www.theaic.org/pub_thechemist...Article-2.html
http://file.scirp.org/Html/2-2710067_33948.htm - half way down, Fig 2 (actually and MMC but based on 6061).
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/7/8/5711/htm - half way down.
http://tinyurl.com/qdr9cqd - Page 23 Fig d)
Now those are pretty spectra, mimicking the Mg-Al-Si-fe signal on Fig 17 very nicely!

However, Fig 17 also has very significant peaks of C and O.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Have you still got your EDX Monte-Carlo program?

It's very weak. Oxygen ratios are very difficult to ascertain especially from very small particles due to the nature of the interaction of the electron beam with the sample.
Sure, and if I didn't, I'd install it in five minutes from http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div837/837....sa2/index.html

I haven't played with it in a long while. Did a few quick tries to mix C and O with AA6061 such that the spectrum best fits Fig 17. I am still a dozend iterations away from being satisfied. I have a tendency that C is quite dominant mass-wise, and O also more plentiful than you'd guess from peak heights. However, the more C and O I mix in to get their peaks in the right proportion to Al, the more Mg and Si are drowned in bremsstrahlung. Now we have to keep in mind that any such simulation makes some assumptions about the samples and their preparation as well as parameters of the equipment. I'd suspect that the C and O is some sort of adhesive film on top of the Al-alloy. Don't know how to simulate that.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
It's interesting to note that when they thought they'd found these pure aluminium particles they didn't think, "Yowsers! Lets up the magnification and get some SEM photos and do some more EDX work focusing on a few of these particles. It will only take another hour max".

Nope, instead they leave it as a single data point and then make huge leaps of assumption from it.
This!!!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 18th June 2015, 11:54 AM   #147
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
1 and 2

Quote:
1) I have explained to you what Jones meant with his XRD comment and how you misrepresented it to fit your wish - for the second time.
You told me that what Jones meant was that he was doing more advanced research to discover the structure of the aluminum. I read what he actually said, which was that he was trying to resolve the question of elemental aluminum and the test was, in essence, worthless. THEN he speculated that there may be a more advanced or esoteric way the aluminum was structured, perhaps amorphous. As usual, we disagree with what was said. You explained to me, I disagree.

Quote:
2) The only thing you can do as a journalist, is to acknowledge what Harrit et al say in their paper, and specifically in this case that they say they identify pure aluminum in the red layer of the chips. You can go straight to the conclusion part to read that announcement in plain non-technical English. It does not matter that you donīt have the technical skills to judge Harritīs paper, and that includes Figure 17. You do not have to understand them to report what they say.
It seems too obvious to say that the authors of the thermitic paper believe they found thermite in the chips. I will, however, correct the claim that all they have is the iron-rich spheres, when they also have the high aluminum content of the one MEK-soaked chip as shown in Figure 17 (but no proof of any elemental aluminum in any of chips a-d). So I mostly disagree with you here.

My INTERPRETATION of the Jones quote is that he was looking for more proof of elemental aluminum and hasn't found it. My CONCLUSION is that he has not met his burden of proof, even though he tried to do so. My REASONS are in the recent posts you have been refusing to respond to, as well as 43 minutes of my video.
__________________
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 18th June 2015, 03:45 PM   #148
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I said so.
I knew someone had!

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Note that the map has plenty of pixels for Al outside of the chip, where the sample holder is. It also shows some O and C for the sample holder, and very few (but more than zero!) pixels for Si and Fe. This is quite consistent with the distribution of elements shown on Fig 17, which was also done at 10 kV:
Yep.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=841

The detail is in actually reading the paper.

And there was some discussion involving The Almond

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=840

It really would be of immense benefit if there was input from a specialist such as The Almond to post here.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
As I said, Fig. 17 is the only XEDS spectrum done at 10 kV, almost all of the others were done at 20 kV, Fig. 18 was done at 15 kV.

I have a hunch that Fig 17 was taken straight from the 10 kV scan they did for the XEDS map in Fig 15: Essentially, an XEDS map is simply a collection of many small spot, low sample rate XEDS spectra, compiled as an image showing where selected elements exceed certain predetermined thresholds. I am convinced the XEDS software gives you an individual spectrum for any spot you might select.
That's exactly what the mapping mode does and yes it will give you an EDX spectrum for each spot along with the X,Y co-ordinate for that individual reading. I know because I've I've done it.

You can view each spectrum. Obviously there are numerous readings depending on what the operator has specified, but you can produce an amalgamation for a given area, which cuts down on the number of spectra to be viewed. These spectra can then be looked at with many at a time present on the screen. So for example if you are interested in a particular phase (composition) then you can flip through the spectra and note the ones that are a good match for the phase you are interested in including the co-ordinates.

Then you can simply type the X,Y co-ordinate into the software and the SEM stage will move so the beam is on that spot marking. From there you can do your thing.

I too noted the difference in accelerating voltage and wondered why they were different in Figs 17 and 18 and below the 20 KeV used in the rest of the paper. There are valid reasons to do so of course. What you note is that the eV in Fig 17 is the same as the eV in Fig 15.

Quote:
XEDS maps were acquired from the swollen red material at a beam energy of 10 kV, in order to determine the locations of various elements following the MEK treatment. The data shown in Fig. (15) illustrate regions where iron, aluminum and silicon are concentrated.
From Harrit et al.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Perhaps Jones searched for the highest Al-count of all map spots, and pulled the data set for that spot, without regard for where it actually is; and it may very well be outside of the chip.
That may very well have been exactly what happened.

As I just said above, looking at numerous spectra after a mapping, in order to find an area you are interested in, is valid method. Normally of course, the mapping is performed on a set area of a sample. It's not customary, but I think it is good practice to include an area box or cross to identify the area that you are performing an EDX on. That way the reader knows exactly which spot or region the spectrum correlates to.

In the case of Fig 15, the whole sample is mapped, which is quite valid, there's nothing wrong in that at all, because that's exactly what anyone would do when looking at the sample as a whole.

What we don't have is the detail for Fig 17. We don't know the exact point it was taken from.

If you were looking for an (area of) interest by looking at individual EDX spectra, for example, a spectrum with a high Al peak, but low O, then you'd find it if that particular spectrum was from the SEM holder/stub.

I could see this happening especially if the data was pulled off the SEM and analysed separately, outside of the session, at leisure and without careful consideration of where that spectrum originated.

The SEM sucks people in, even people with experience of using it. There is a tendency to focus on ever more minor detail. The levels of resolution capable are so unbelievably large that you can forget the level of scale you are working with and exactly what the tools available are capable of. That includes me by the way! It's so damn interesting, which is why it's very useful having an experienced operator to real you in now and again.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Can you find a source confirming this? You may not recall correctly...
Unfortunately not, because sample holder manufacturers don't tend to specify the alloy, they merely quote the product as aluminium. Even with brass holders they won't specify between 70/30 and 60/40 brass. It's not important for the purpose unless there is a specific product.

I just have this nagging recollection, so had a quick look at 6061 EDX spectra from a number of sources. That external data seemed to fit well.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Now those are pretty spectra, mimicking the Mg-Al-Si-fe signal on Fig 17 very nicely!

However, Fig 17 also has very significant peaks of C and O.
I only looked for 6061 EDX spectra based on my recollection of that being the material used for SEM stubs. The peaks for Mg and Si in relation to Al do correlate to that area of the spectrum in Fig 17.

C and O could be the conducting SEM tape.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sure, and if I didn't, I'd install it in five minutes from http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div837/837....sa2/index.html

I haven't played with it in a long while. Did a few quick tries to mix C and O with AA6061 such that the spectrum best fits Fig 17. I am still a dozend iterations away from being satisfied. I have a tendency that C is quite dominant mass-wise, and O also more plentiful than you'd guess from peak heights. However, the more C and O I mix in to get their peaks in the right proportion to Al, the more Mg and Si are drowned in bremsstrahlung. Now we have to keep in mind that any such simulation makes some assumptions about the samples and their preparation as well as parameters of the equipment. I'd suspect that the C and O is some sort of adhesive film on top of the Al-alloy. Don't know how to simulate that.
Sorry to have awoken your inner Kraken.

One thing I will say and ask truthers - with such a tiny amount of perceived pure Al present, then how on earth can such a material

a) be claimed as thermite
b) do what is claimed?
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 18th June 2015, 03:51 PM   #149
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,305
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post

One thing I will say and ask truthers - with such a tiny amount of perceived pure Al present, then how on earth can such a material

a) be claimed as thermite
b) do what is claimed?

Faith, pure and simple.
__________________
"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 18th June 2015, 03:51 PM   #150
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

...My INTERPRETATION of the Jones quote is that he was looking for more proof of elemental aluminum and hasn't found it. My CONCLUSION is that he has not met his burden of proof, even though he tried to do so. My REASONS are in the recent posts you have been refusing to respond to, as well as 43 minutes of my video.
Yes Chris, you made a 43 minute video where you claim that Prof Jones has admitted he never found elemental aluminum in any of his tests. Itīs good that you acknowledge the obvious - today - but yesterday you tried to deny this and accused me of falsely accusing you of saying Jones did not find aluminum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=143


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...It seems too obvious to say that the authors of the thermitic paper believe they found thermite in the chips. I will, however, correct the claim that all they have is the iron-rich spheres, when they also have the high aluminum content of the one MEK-soaked chip as shown in Figure 17 (but no proof of any elemental aluminum in any of chips a-d). So I mostly disagree with you here...
Chris, I donīt know if you are giving vague non-answers to my post on purpose or if you cannot do better. Let me repeat a point you were supposed to answer in post 127:

Quote:
The only thing you can do as a journalist, is to acknowledge what Harrit et al say in their paper, and specifically in this case that they say they identify pure aluminum in the red layer of the chips. You can go straight to the conclusion part to read that announcement in plain non-technical English.
Your major was in English, was it not? I am sure that it is easy for an English major, who also indicates in private emails that he is MENSA material, to understand and ACKNOWLEDGE the above.

Now, for your convenience, I include for you the relevant passage from the conclusion part of Harritīs paper:

Quote:
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
The only thing you can do as a journalist is to accurately report what Dr. Harrit and DR. Jones and the others actually say. It does not matter one bit if you disagree with what they say, or imagine that you can debunk it - that does not give you permission as a journalist to claim that they actually said they did not find aluminum in the red material.

Another thing you have avoided answering in that post:
Quote:
You cannot put your spin on it or claim they said something else entirely, just because you may not agree with their conclusions. If I went around the internet claiming that Millette found aluminum and that Chris Mohr has admitted that, you would get angry at me for misrepresenting your comments and quotes, and you would probably call me a liar. Correct?
Please respond.

You cannot move on until you have acknloweged that Harrit et al very clearly say they identify elemental aluminum in the red layer of the chips, and that you are not allowed as a journalist to claim otherwise because you disagree with their claims.
Ziggi 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 18th June 2015, 03:58 PM   #151
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,305
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
The only thing you can do as a journalist is to accurately report what Dr. Harrit and DR. Jones and the others actually say. It does not matter one bit if you disagree with what they say, or imagine that you can debunk it - that does not give you permission as a journalist to claim that they actually said they did not find aluminum in the red material.
He didn't say this. Why are you misrepresenting what he said and explained to you.

Do you believe the finding of elemental aluminum was confirmed? Simple question.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th June 2015 at 04:00 PM.
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 18th June 2015, 04:22 PM   #152
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Yes Chris, you made a 43 minute video where you claim that Prof Jones has admitted he never found elemental aluminum in any of his tests. Itīs good that you acknowledge the obvious - today - but yesterday you tried to deny this and accused me of falsely accusing you of saying Jones did not find aluminum: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=143
I do not need to clarify that Harrit believes he found thermite, that's already included in his quote at the end of this section of the video! The answer is NO. I've already quoted Harrit as saying it. I'm not saying that again.


Quote:
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
The only thing you can do as a journalist is to accurately report what Dr. Harrit and DR. Jones and the others actually say. It does not matter one bit if you disagree with what they say, or imagine that you can debunk it - that does not give you permission as a journalist to claim that they actually said they did not find aluminum in the red material.
Yes, Harrit already said this in my quote of him in my video and I simply quote him without direct rebuttal.
Quote:
Another thing you have avoided answering in that post:
Quote:
You cannot put your spin on it or claim they said something else entirely, just because you may not agree with their conclusions. If I went around the internet claiming that Millette found aluminum and that Chris Mohr has admitted that, you would get angry at me for misrepresenting your comments and quotes, and you would probably call me a liar. Correct?
Please respond.
Wrong. I would not call you a liar. And my anger is none of your business.
Quote:
You cannot move on until you have acknloweged that Harrit et al very clearly say they identify elemental aluminum in the red layer of the chips, and that you are not allowed as a journalist to claim otherwise because you disagree with their claims.
They CLAIM they found elemental aluminum, and their one piece of direct evidence is a single MEK-soaked chip different in chemical makeup from chips a-d, and I will be sure to make this more clear. I have already made it cledar in other parts of my video that THEY CLAIM that iron-rich spheres are evidence. However, please show me again, I'm SOOOO dumb you know, where in my video I claim that they say they DID NOT find elemental aluminum again? In a section where I am talking about their failure to publish TEM and FTIR data, you are accusing me of saying that THEY SAY no aluminum in the chips! Really, I'm serious. Where did I say that?
I know you are living by the dictum that the best defense is a good offense, and while the elephant is calmly standing in the room, you go on harping at me about something I don't believe I have ever said in the video.
__________________
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 18th June 2015, 07:42 PM   #153
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...I do not need to clarify that Harrit believes he found thermite, that's already included in his quote at the end of this section of the video! The answer is NO. I've already quoted Harrit as saying it. I'm not saying that again...
What? Why are you talking about Harrit and thermite in response to my comment about you claiming that Dr Jones found no aluminum?
Edited by Agatha:  Edited breach of rule 12



Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
.....Yes, Harrit already said this in my quote of him in my video and I simply quote him without direct rebuttal...
No Chris, this is from the Harrit et al nanothermite paper. I repeat quote:

Quote:
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
This is the conclusion of the paper, which means it is the conclusion of ALL the authors of that paper, not just Harrit. This includes Dr Jones, which means Dr. Jones says he found elemental aluminum of the red layer of the chips, in case you are interested, as a journalist, to quote him correctly in proper context.


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...Wrong. I would not call you a liar. And my anger is none of your business....
Thats very curious. So, would you not call me a liar for saying that "Millette found pure aluminum in the chips and that Chris Mohr has admitted that" - because that is the truth, or because you think it would be OK for me to say that even though neither of you ever said that?

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
They CLAIM they found elemental aluminum, and their one piece of direct evidence is a single MEK-soaked chip different in chemical makeup from chips a-d, and I will be sure to make this more clear. ....
Yes Chris , they claim and conclude in the nanothermite paper that the red layer of their chips has elemental aluminum, and that is all you can honestly report as a journalist. You cannot say claim that they or any one of them, Dr Jones for example, said they did not find aluminum, even though you may disagree with their conclusion.

And you cannot change what they claim by trying to debunk their work, and certainly not by rehashing old BS about them confusing chips. Anyone can make up BS like that, but Harrit et al are not the only potential victims: if you want to go down that road, you or anyone else, could say the same thing about Millette and his finding of kaolin in his prelim report. As you said yourself only a couple of days ago:

Quote:
I am incompetent to independently judge the scientific merits of the thermitic paper
I hope for your sake that you have not forgotten that.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...I have already made it cledar in other parts of my video that THEY CLAIM that iron-rich spheres are evidence. However, please show me again, I'm SOOOO dumb you know, where in my video I claim that they say they DID NOT find elemental aluminum again? .
Chris, you are burying yourself in BS.

...At about 3min30s you say the lack of adequate elemental aluminum before ignition "positively rules out" thermite..

...At about 3m50s you put a big poster on the screen with a few comments, including the question "where is the elemental aluminum" and also "no aluminum, no thermite"....

...Then you say truther Scootle (my fellow writer for debunkingthedebunkers and one of the most ardent supporters of Harrit et al) understood this and list him as a "former supporter" of nanothermite, which is absolute BS..

... At about 4m30s you very directly say that Harrit et al did not find elemental aluminum with their materials characterization tests, and give the appearance that Frank Legge, one of Harritīs co-authors agrees!

...Then after the 6m mark you give the appearance that Jones was agreeing with previous statements in your video about them not identifying elemental aluminum when he gave that comment about the XRD not identifying any form al compounds at all. You cannot exuse that now, after having posted that video, by claiming that you only meant to imply this quote referred to Jones not identifying the structure of the aluminum there, instead of claiming he was saying he did not find elemental aluminum. That is not the context of the video, and you are on record claiming you did not know the true context of that comment at the time!

...and also, then at about 6m40s you talk about Millette simply agreeing with Jonesīs conclusion, that is that Millette also found no elemental aluminum. You cannot claim that Millette and Jones came to the same conclusion of NO elemental aluminum, without claiming that Jones was indeed saying he found no elemental aluminum. Simple as that.

xxxx

You give very authoritative statements about Harrit et al not finding elemental aluminum with their material characterization tests, and you quote two of Harritīs co-authors wildly out of context to give the appearance that they agree with you. You even give the impression that the third co-author, Dr Farrer, may agree with you as well! And You even list Scootle too!

Taking quotes out of context to give the appearance of supporting your opinion is no better than misquoting people to give the appearance of support. Both are examples of the same misconduct.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited breaches of rule 12


And before you go all high and mighty about this being an ad-hominem attack, keep in mind that you have accused scientists of having mental problems and Alzheimers. When you dish it out you have to eat some too sometimes..

Mod Warning Attacks on non-members of the forum are permissible. Attacks on members are not. Please read the membership agreement to which you agreed on joining here, particularly rule 12.
Posted By:Agatha

Last edited by Agatha; 22nd June 2015 at 06:37 AM.
Ziggi 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 18th June 2015, 07:56 PM   #154
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
What? Why are you talking about Harrit and thermite in response to my comment about you claiming that Dr Jones found no aluminum?
Edited by Agatha:  Edited moderated content



No Chris, this is from the Harrit et al nanothermite paper. I repeat quote:



This is the conclusion of the paper, which means it is the conclusion of ALL the authors of that paper, not just Harrit. This includes Dr Jones, which means Dr. Jones says he found elemental aluminum of the red layer of the chips, in case you are interested, as a journalist, to quote him correctly in proper context.




Thats very curious. So, would you not call me a liar for saying that "Millette found pure aluminum in the chips and that Chris Mohr has admitted that" - because that is the truth, or because you think it would be OK for me to say that even though neither of you ever said that?



Yes Chris , they claim and conclude in the nanothermite paper that the red layer of their chips has elemental aluminum, and that is all you can honestly report as a journalist. You cannot say claim that they or any one of them, Dr Jones for example, said they did not find aluminum, even though you may disagree with their conclusion.

And you cannot change what they claim by trying to debunk their work, and certainly not by rehashing old BS about them confusing chips. Anyone can make up BS like that, but Harrit et al are not the only potential victims: if you want to go down that road, you or anyone else, could say the same thing about Millette and his finding of kaolin in his prelim report. As you said yourself only a couple of days ago:



I hope for your sake that you have not forgotten that.



Chris, you are burying yourself in BS.

...At about 3min30s you say the lack of adequate elemental aluminum before ignition "positively rules out" thermite..

...At about 3m50s you put a big poster on the screen with a few comments, including the question "where is the elemental aluminum" and also "no aluminum, no thermite"....

...Then you say truther Scootle (my fellow writer for debunkingthedebunkers and one of the most ardent supporters of Harrit et al) understood this and list him as a "former supporter" of nanothermite, which is absolute BS..

... At about 4m30s you very directly say that Harrit et al did not find elemental aluminum with their materials characterization tests, and give the appearance that Frank Legge, one of Harritīs co-authors agrees!

...Then after the 6m mark you give the appearance that Jones was agreeing with previous statements in your video about them not identifying elemental aluminum when he gave that comment about the XRD not identifying any form al compounds at all. You cannot exuse that now, after having posted that video, by claiming that you only meant to imply this quote referred to Jones not identifying the structure of the aluminum there, instead of claiming he was saying he did not find elemental aluminum. That is not the context of the video, and you are on record claiming you did not know the true context of that comment at the time!

...and also, then at about 6m40s you talk about Millette simply agreeing with Jonesīs conclusion, that is that Millette also found no elemental aluminum. You cannot claim that Millette and Jones came to the same conclusion of elemental aluminum, without claiming that Jones was indeed saying he found no elemental aluminum. Simple as that.

xxxx

You give very authoritative statements about Harrit et al not finding elemental aluminum with their material characterization tests, and you quote two of Harritīs co-authors wildly out of context to give the appearance that they agree with you. You even give the impression that the third co-author, Dr Farrer, may agree with you as well! And You even list Scootle too!

Edited by Agatha:  Edited moderated content
.
No conclusive proof Harrit found elemental Aluminum, on any sample, a single reading without confirmation means nothing.
Science demands repeatable verified results, without verification the hypothesis,
That the chips are thermite is unsubstantiated, and ridiculous.
If you can show verification of the finding than do so, otherwise your wasting everyones time.

Last edited by Agatha; 22nd June 2015 at 06:38 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th June 2015, 08:44 PM   #155
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Last year a debunker accused Dr Griscom of having Alzheimer's, and Ziggi is getting his revenge on me by questioning my sanity and my medical condition. So once again, I am finished with him. I actually defended Dr Griscom and did not support those accusations against him. But Ziggi blames me for every insult that comes over this forum.
I am grateful to him for pointing out some flaws in my video. I am not grateful for his ad hominem attacks, which are obvious to everyone who reads this exchange.
Ziggi, you conflate my rebuttals against the thermite hypothesis (and my quotes of people on both sides of the issue) with claiming that I misquote Jones et al. I'll look over your accusations, but again, I do NOT say that Jones said they found no elemental aluminum. I said that, not Jones. I quoted Jones and let it stand on its own, right after the Farrer quote. I think it shows that Jones was unsatisfied with the test results when he set out to prove elemental aluminum, but I didn't editorialize. I quote Basile saying the elemental aluminum is not yet fully proven. I will note with the Scootle comment that he still supports the thermite hypothesis (as I noted with Farrer), but I did quote Scootle from the 9/11 blog correctly.
As for the Legge quote, I wrote, "One of Harritīs co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. has stated that: ...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres… largely iron.” He claims that elemental aluminum is proved by iron microspheres, not by the direct materials characterization tests which failed to find it." I did not mean to say that Legge admitted they failed to find it, that is my conclusion, and I will clarify that.
As for your personal attack on my "medical condition," that is a low blow and you know it. Did Rick tell you he complimented me on my video? Not that he agreed with me, but he thought it was well done. You, on the other hand, are incapable of respectful debate. The only evidence of insanity anyone could find against me was my willingness to give you another chance, when you repeatedly stoop to new lows every time we debate or discuss. I wish it were not so, as you have given me some good information and some important corrections.
Good bye.
__________________
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

Last edited by chrismohr; 18th June 2015 at 08:48 PM. Reason: spelchek
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 18th June 2015, 10:39 PM   #156
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Last year a debunker accused Dr Griscom of having Alzheimer's, and Ziggi is getting his revenge on me by questioning my sanity and my medical condition. So once again, I am finished with him. I actually defended Dr Griscom and did not support those accusations against him. But Ziggi blames me for every insult that comes over this forum.
I am grateful to him for pointing out some flaws in my video. I am not grateful for his ad hominem attacks, which are obvious to everyone who reads this exchange..
Your buddy Frank accused Griscom of having Alzheimers on this forum, and contrary to your lofty claim of defending Griscom, you agreed with Frank on this forum about Griscom being unfit, but said it was in bad taste to label him an Alzheimers on the forum. In private emails which I have on record you also fully supported Frank and called Griscom a possible dementia patient. Have you forgotten this already?

You also accused Tony Szamboti of possible mental illness on this forum a few months ago, because he kept saying the fall of the Towers could not have ignited fires in B7. Have you forgotten this already?

You accuse people of mental problems, and you base your research and opinions on your forum friends which are all known potty mouths that accuse Truthers of being mentally ill on a regular basis.

So stop the act Chris.

If you claim to have accused Griscom and Szamboti of mental illness due to genuine concern for them because of their behavior, you should be able to discuss when others bring up concerns about your behavior, which has been extremely suspicious in recent months. I can give you a long list of examples where you seemingly completely forget points/comments made within days and weeks and months.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ziggi, you conflate my rebuttals against the thermite hypothesis (and my quotes of people on both sides of the issue) with claiming that I misquote Jones et al. I'll look over your accusations, but again, I do NOT say that Jones said they found no elemental aluminum. I said that, not Jones. I quoted Jones and let it stand on its own, right after the Farrer quote. I think it shows that Jones was unsatisfied with the test results when he set out to prove elemental aluminum, but I didn't editorialize...
No Chris, I have said you have taken quotes and comments wildly out of context to give the apperance that Harrit et al did not identify elemental aluminum, and to give the appearance that at least two of the authors, Jones and Legge, agree with you, and even that later tests by Jones and Farrer confirmed their alleged inability to identify elemental aluminum in the paper.

It does not matter if you change quotes or post them out of context along with your statements to give the appearance that they support your opinion. Both are examples of academic misconduct, and that is the nice word for it. The less nice word is fraud. Whether you are doing this on purpose or because you donīt know better is not really the issue at this point.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I will note with the Scootle comment that he still supports the thermite hypothesis (as I noted with Farrer), but I did quote Scootle from the 9/11 blog correctly....
No you did not quote him correctly. You neglected to mention that you were quoting a draft of an article that he never finished and posted, perhaps because he ended up not agreeing with it. That you used that draft as a quote to indicate that Scootle had redrawn his support of Harrit et al was a shameful example of your MO, accidental or not.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
As for the Legge quote, I wrote, "One of Harritīs co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. has stated that: ...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres… largely iron.” He claims that elemental aluminum is proved by iron microspheres, not by the direct materials characterization tests which failed to find it." I did not mean to say that Legge admitted they failed to find it, that is my conclusion, and I will clarify that..
Yes this was your mistake and the same mistake you did with all the other quotes to give the impression that these gentlemen did not find aluminum. This is what happens when you quote things out of context, and especially when you do that and then put those out of context quotes next your statements. Your whole "no aluminum" section of the video is a compilation of this same basic MO or mistake, and in fact the whole video...

This is pointed out to you on a regular basis but it always goes in one ear and out the other. In the rare instance you concede an error you forget about it within days or weeks and come right back with the same old claim again, like it is fresh from the oven. All the things you said you learned from our emails seem to have been forgotten already Chris, because your video is pretty much a compilation of them.

You have a problem Chris.

Last edited by Ziggi; 18th June 2015 at 10:40 PM.
Ziggi 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 18th June 2015, 10:55 PM   #157
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

....I wish it were not so, as you have given me some good information and some important corrections.
Good bye.
In an academic setting, when a paper is shown to be full of out of context quotes to support the authorīs view, that paper is not "corrected" it is given an F if the author is a student. If lucky, the student may get another chance to write a paper, a new paper starting from scratch. Not so lucky = expelled.

If the author was a professor or a research scientist the career is over.

Chris, you have no idea how serious your errors are. You are not up to this.

Last edited by Ziggi; 18th June 2015 at 10:57 PM.
Ziggi 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 18th June 2015, 11:07 PM   #158
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Chris wins; Jones had a fantasy and ran away.

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
... You have a problem Chris.
Yes, Chris is rational. You have a fantasy from Jones.

Where is 911 truth's Pulitzer? I mean thermite causing the collapse of the WTC is bigger than Watergate, yet 911 truth has no evidence past the delusional rant of Jones and Harrit and a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists who spread lies about 911, and fake a paper's conclusion based on BS.

Where is the Pulitzer? If I had 911 truth's overwhelming evidence, they failed to share, I would have teamed with a newspaper and been famous years ago. Where is the Pulitzer?

Why is 911 truth waiting? lol, 911 truth has a fantasy, and Chris won. No Pulitzer for 911 truth; no evidence, only a fake conclusion in a paper which has no proof of thermite. Read the paper for comprehension.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 19th June 2015, 12:23 AM   #159
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,139
Chris Mohr, you have worked out and clearly expressed two facts that remain true no matter how viciously Ziggi tries to attack you and call into question your integrity:

1. Harrit, Jones et al SAY they found "elemental" Al and thus a "thermitic" material.
2. Their own data SHOWS that what they say is almost certainly wrong. (Plus, they totally, absolutely, grossly FAILED to corroborate elemental Al in all of their follow-up work).

Ziggi seems to try to convince people that when a "scientist" claims a fact in a paper, that a journalist cannot say "that claim is wrong".
You correctly reported the claims Harrit et al made
AND you correctly reported many reasons why the claims are FALSE.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 19th June 2015, 05:13 AM   #160
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,737
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
In an academic setting, when a paper is shown to be full of out of context quotes to support the authorīs view, that paper is not "corrected" it is given an F if the author is a student. If lucky, the student may get another chance to write a paper, a new paper starting from scratch. Not so lucky = expelled.

If the author was a professor or a research scientist the career is over.

Chris, you have no idea how serious your errors are. You are not up to this.
In an academic setting Harrit and Jones's paper would never have been published,
It would have received an F- because of the pesudo science expressed in the paper.
The complete and utter failure to attempt falsification, or replication of results,
points to it being nothing more than the same old boring song and dance politically motivated scam started by Steven E. Jones back in 2005.
The thermite scam never had any validity, and was a fraud,from the start, Jones read
The Areojel thermite paper published in 2004 and jumped to a false
conclusion, that Areojel thermites were explosive, because they create
a gas byproduct, which is false.
Given that the paper was submitted at a fire works convention,
The real value of the Areojel nano thermite becomes clear, safer ignition
Systems for fire works.
Jones and Harrit are a complete and utter joke, the paint chip twins.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 06:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 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.