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 28th June 2015, 11:29 AM   #281
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I suggest "hoax" - here's the brief reasoning - I decided not to post the para-legal thesis which was my first draft.

IMO "fraud" is too strong and we don't have proof of EITHER the intent to mislead OR a specific target victim who was damaged by the fraud. Who has been defrauded? Cannot be "us" - we were/are not fooled. So at the most - for us - it is "attempted fraud".

Also a personal style preference - I prefer if debunkers avoid truther style debating tricks including "overbidding" by making claims which they cannot support.

"Misconduct" is softer but still lacks the same element - we cannot prove intent. (IMO - sure it may be demonstrable but what has been posted doesn't address the need for proof.)

I suggest "hoax" which is an even vaguer term but doesn't need the rigour of proof - gets the message across IMO to a broader audience without tripping up pedantic types like me.

'Hoax', to me at least, does imply a wilful intent to deceive. For example, Piltdown ManWP. In particular, note the use of 'fraud' in that article; 'fraud' and 'hoax' are nearly interchangeable (to me, 'fraud' is an action, over time; 'hoax' is singular event, usually with an object).

The best I can think of for the meaning you seem to be aiming at is 'misleading', which can be unintentional as well as intentional.
__________________
"Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die."

Last edited by grmcdorman; 28th June 2015 at 11:30 AM. Reason: Add quote of post
grmcdorman 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 28th June 2015, 11:49 AM   #282
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
"Misconduct" is softer but still lacks the same element - we cannot prove intent. (IMO - sure it may be demonstrable but what has been posted doesn't address the need for proof.)

I suggest "hoax" which is an even vaguer term but doesn't need the rigour of proof - gets the message across IMO to a broader audience without tripping up pedantic types like me.
To my ears, hoax implies an intent to deceive and usually premeditated deliberation, while misconduct can be committed without much deliberation.
But that's my non-native hearing ears

WP: "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. ...
According to Professor Lynda Walsh ... the distinction between hoax and fraud is not necessarily clear."
WP: "In law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts."

I think misconduct applies better to our situation; hoax is the stronger accusation, as it implies a deliberate falsification. You may well be correct that Jones and Harrit are hoaxters, but it's harder to prove than mere mixconduct. (In association football, "misconduct" is anything that draws disciplinary action, i.e. yellow and red cards. Some deeds that are deemed misconduct can be perpetrated unintentionally).
__________________
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 28th June 2015, 12:05 PM   #283
grmcdorman
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,209
As a native speaker, misconduct often implies wilful deception, but as you say not necessarily premeditated. Misconduct can be an attempt to cover up a mistake, for example. However, it does also cover planned, premeditated deception; it's a pretty broad category. It is weaker than hoax, though.
__________________
"Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die."

Last edited by grmcdorman; 28th June 2015 at 12:06 PM.
grmcdorman 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 28th June 2015, 12:17 PM   #284
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,869
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
There are not enough laughing dogs for Jones' insane fantasy of thermite. No one can support their delusion past posting a laughing dog. The only evidence you have to support Jones' folly. 13 years of failure and fooling the gullible, 911 truth's only products.

Why did Jones make the thermite fraud?

The dolts, Jones et al, think the nano-particles are something new, yet nano-particles have existed for thousands of years; the dolts fool the gullible because the gullible can't do research, or comprehend chemistry, technology, and science. 911 truth, a movement populated with people practicing ignorance.

Chris is trying to help the ignorant followers see 911 truth, is 911 Lies based on ignornace.
__________________
"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; 28th June 2015 at 12:25 PM.
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 28th June 2015, 12:32 PM   #285
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
The only word I can use to describe the 9/11 Truth CD Theory is "wrong." I go mad when I try to understand the intentions and motives of others. So I won't bother with calling it a fraud or a hoax or misconduct.

After all my contacts with Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Jeff Farrer, Mark Basile, Rick Shaddock, Ziggi, MM, Chris Sarns, Steven Jones, various and sundry antiSemites and religious extremists, local 9/11 Truth activists, David Chandler and countless others, I find it's a mistake to assume good intentions to everyone as Buddha advises. Some people genuinely want a peaceful world and sincerely believe in the CD theories, and some are always in attack mode against anyone who disagrees with them (and some have both aspects). Some of these people betrayed my benevolent assumptions about them. So bye bye benevolent assumptions; best to make no assumptions at all and just see how people behave.

I gave the most benign interpretation possible to the Farrer quote about the TEM results. But I agree that suggesting to their lead researcher that he may have used the "wrong chips" was a jawdropping revelation to me. Going forward to publication with only the slimmest of evidence was the wrong thing to do. Withholding the TEM and FTIR data when it was promised leaves me thinking they probably ARE hiding something. I may be wrong about that, but in light of Oystein's quotes re Jones and the readings they talked about in the TEM, now it seems that Jones has contradicted himself. Does the TEM data show Al or not? Oystein's quote says yes, my quote of Jones saying they couldn't find ANY aluminum in the TEM or followup test says no. Make the data public and we won't have to guess. Jones et al cannot be taken seriously, their paper is incomplete at best and fails in its goal of proving thermite.
They are wrong wrong wrong, or at best way premature, to claim thermite in the dust. They have utterly failed to meet their burden of proof, and telling their own lead researcher he may have had the "wrong chips" is evidence that they allowed their beliefs to supersede their scientific training.

There are lots of scientists who believe things they cannot prove. That's fine. I've mentioned before the explorers who believed there really was some kind of huge hairy man-beast in the African jungles. They were mocked and marginalized until they came back to London with a gorilla! Most people who search for legendary monsters end up chasing Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster all their lives. But sometimes they come up with the real thing. To the 9/11 Truth people, I say come back to me when you've found your gorilla. And tell the truth: you ain't found it yet.
__________________
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; 28th June 2015 at 12:35 PM. Reason: spel
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 28th June 2015, 12:44 PM   #286
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,869
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
. ... Most people who search for legendary monsters end up chasing Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster all their lives. But sometimes they come up with the real thing. To the 9/11 Truth people, I say come back to me when you've found your gorilla. And tell the truth: you ain't found it yet.
19 murderers did 911, we found the gorilla, it was hate; 911 truth is based on ignorance. Comprehension skills in reading prove Jones paper did not prove anything, except, there are people who lack skills to see Jones lied.

People who are fooled by Jones who posses some rational critical thinking skills can use your work to wake up and see the illusion of BS Jones pushes.
__________________
"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 28th June 2015, 01:04 PM   #287
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,864
Does anyone disagree that the authors of the Bentham paper omitted data that inexplicably conflicted with other data or with their proposed interpretation.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 28th June 2015, 01:07 PM   #288
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,885
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Does anyone disagree that the authors of the Bentham paper omitted data that inexplicably conflicted with other data or with their proposed interpretation.
More importantly, though, does anyone really care?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 28th June 2015, 01:13 PM   #289
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,864
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
More importantly, though, does anyone really care?

Dave
Good question. There is a group of people who are out over $5k and are wondering if they can get their money back. Also there is a website milking the thermite cow that doesn't want to know. Any others?
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 28th June 2015, 01:14 PM   #290
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think it's more like perpetuating a belief. There was a lot of pressure from the flock to provide evidence that supports the belief. Publishing prematurely without proper proof allows the belief to continue until more can be found.

The proof is there, you just have to believe. (sound familiar)

I think that is the central point.

These persons are faith believers preaching to the flock. Rigour of reasoning or science is not needed for their purposes. The analogies to other areas of human faith based behaviour obvious.

Whilst I respect the rigorous scientific work in all this rebuttal I have long questioned "Why bother?" from the perspective of 9/11 debate.

Sure I'm in a lone minority - maybe of one - me - BUT it is of near zero relevance to explaining WTC 9/11 collapses. The only relevance to 9/11 being if thermXte was used in CD. And there was no CD. Hence my oft repeated comment - "It wouldn't matter if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at ground zero - it wasn't used for CD because there was no CD".

If some truther ever puts forward a viable CD hypothesis I could then be interested IF thermXte was a part of said hypothesis. But I'm not into chasing truther style arse about logic.

The reversed burden of DISproof we so often accept "X could be used for CD THEREFORE you debunkers prove it wasn't"

...which was why I put forward my "Santa's Custard" hypothesis....AND my reasoned support for Santa's Custard is more rigorously argued than the truther claims for thermXte.

BUT no one takes MY hypothesis seriously....


ozeco41 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 28th June 2015, 01:18 PM   #291
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
More importantly, though, does anyone really care?

Dave


Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Good question. There is a group of people who are out over $5k and are wondering if they can get their money back. Also there is a website milking the thermite cow that doesn't want to know. Any others?
They blew their money - so what?



Why are we interested??
ozeco41 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 28th June 2015, 01:27 PM   #292
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,864
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif

They blew their money - so what?

http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif

Why are we interested??
You need to go with the flow, follow the riff dude.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 28th June 2015 at 01:31 PM.
BasqueArch 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 28th June 2015, 01:32 PM   #293
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Does anyone disagree that the authors of the Bentham paper omitted data that inexplicably conflicted with other data or with their proposed interpretation.
Again, it's POSSIBLE (in my most benign interpretation) that they considered the FTIR and TEM data useless. For example, if it showed no aluminum of any kind at all. In other words, not contradicting their thermite claims, just showing a blank screen.

I am being very benign when I offer this possibility. There is another possibility, which one of Oystein's recent posts suggests with his quote from Jones, that there IS aluminum data from Farrer's TEM readings. And more data in the FTIR readings.

I see where you are going with this. Where am I going? Towards the more benign conclusion that they have failed to prove thermite in the dust. Show Me The Gorilla. Until then, I think I've done my job of investigating their claims and finding that they have failed. Beachnut is almost certainly right: the gorilla is the hate-filled terrorists who hijacked the planes and used them as weapons of mass terror.

The minute you try to assert fraud or a hoax, the burden of proof is on you, not them. We now know all we need to know to show that their conclusions are wrong, and we even have an inside peek into their behavior. That's enough for me.
__________________
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 28th June 2015, 01:33 PM   #294
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,469
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

Sure I'm in a lone minority - maybe of one - me - BUT it is of near zero relevance to explaining WTC 9/11 collapses.
As far as I've seen nothing the 9/11 "truther" movement has done has had anything to do with the actual events of the day*. It's always been about perpetuating a belief. The belief is it was an "inside job", all efforts are aimed at continuing that belief.

We argue against a religion, pure and simple.

* exception apply (but are few)
__________________
"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; 28th June 2015 at 01:34 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 28th June 2015, 01:47 PM   #295
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Does anyone disagree that the authors of the Bentham paper omitted data that inexplicably conflicted with other data or with their proposed interpretation.
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Again, it's POSSIBLE (in my most benign interpretation) that they considered the FTIR and TEM data useless. For example, if it showed no aluminum of any kind at all. In other words, not contradicting their thermite claims, just showing a blank screen.

I am being very benign when I offer this possibility. There is another possibility, which one of Oystein's recent posts suggests with his quote from Jones, that there IS aluminum data from Farrer's TEM readings. And more data in the FTIR readings.

I see where you are going with this. Where am I going? Towards the more benign conclusion that they have failed to prove thermite in the dust. Show Me The Gorilla. Until then, I think I've done my job of investigating their claims and finding that they have failed. Beachnut is almost certainly right: the gorilla is the hate-filled terrorists who hijacked the planes and used them as weapons of mass terror.

The minute you try to assert fraud or a hoax, the burden of proof is on you, not them. We now know all we need to know to show that their conclusions are wrong, and we even have an inside peek into their behavior. That's enough for me.
Chris, the question was a factual yes or no question.
You don't really know where I'm going with this.
Is your answer yes or no.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 28th June 2015, 02:31 PM   #296
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,887
They intended to deceive. Hoax is the right word.
GlennB 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 28th June 2015, 03:12 PM   #297
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Basque Arch, I can't answer your question because I don't know.
__________________
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 28th June 2015, 04:51 PM   #298
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Again, it's POSSIBLE (in my most benign interpretation) that they considered the FTIR and TEM data useless. For example, if it showed no aluminum of any kind at all. In other words, not contradicting their thermite claims, just showing a blank screen.

I am being very benign when I offer this possibility.
The FTIR data should have identified the carbon based matrix (within which the particles were embedded).

There are two layers in the chips a-d and the MEK chip. These are labelled as red and gray. (I know everyone knows that but bear with me).

It's very apparent that the gray layer in all of these samples is the same material, even in a chip that has multiple layers. However, they fail to positively identify this material even though the clues are right there. The gray layer is obviously metallic as can be seen from the optical and SEM microscopy. Considering the EDX data for that layer shows a spectrum containing iron and carbon along with oxygen and distinct peaks around the KeV for Mn then the analysis strongly points towards this gray layer being steel.

This is very basic observation. Considering they were looking for a material that would have been used to melt structural steel then the fact they had no idea what this gray layer material was (other than an oxidised iron) or it's purpose, shows they really didn't understand what they were looking at or at best blind to it. This may have been hampered by observing chips with multiple layers, but as you can see from Fig 32 and the accompanying text this same layer appears in that multi-layered chip.

I don't really know what to say, because it is such a fundamental mistake.

When I did the analysis on the gray layer I showed that the material found in Harrit et al matched the material found in FEMA report "Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7".

It should have been self evident that this layer was an oxidised steel. That fact would still have been consistent with the thermite hypothesis, i.e, red layer equals thermite, gray layer is structural steel. Yet we have this from Harrit et al:

Quote:
In addition, the gray-layer material demands further
study. What is its purpose?
To me that suggests that they considered this metallic gray layer to be a component of the thermite. Considering that iron oxide is a component of thermite and the EDX spectrum of this layer, on first viewing, shows oxidised iron, then I can see that their own prejudice pointed them in a certain direction. It would explain why chips with both red and gray layers were subjected to DSC rather than the more rational stance of separating the two bearing in mind the SEM data showed iron oxide pigment was present in the red layer. Truthers often point to the 100nm iron oxide pigment as if it's some form of highly engineered material that can only be fabricated in a dedicated lab, but they ignore the gray layer.

Not correctly identifying the gray layer is incompetent because it's such an easy thing to do. Millette correctly identifies the material. I'm therefore of the opinion that the analysis of the data for the gray layer was one of incompetence.

The red layer is obviously where the meat of the discussion lies. This layer consists of 3 constituents that are visible by SEM and EDX analysis: The carbon based matrix, the rhomboid iron oxide particles and the hexagonal flat platelets.

The organic matrix is not identified in Harrit et al. The SEM images suggest a cross-linked polymer of some sort, but no attempt to identify this material is evident in the paper. However, Millette's work using FTIR clearly shows that this material is an epoxy of some form. FTIR is not the tool to use in order to find out if the sample contains pure Al. It will tell you what the organic binder material is and it will identify the presence of kaolin. We have no idea which sample(s) was subjected to FTIR. We have no idea whether it was a chip akin to chips a-d) or the MEK chip or something else, we just know it was done.

Considering such a test will identify the organic matrix then it's an important test to use and should have been a part of the paper seeing as it's a non-destructive test (NDT). This experiment may have been considered unimportant because it didn't identify Al, but that is just a misappropriation.

We then move onto the hexagonal platelets that are embedded in the unidentified organic matrix. The very fact that these particles are shown to be the shape they are shows that these particles are crystalline in nature. There is simply no getting away from the fact. The EDX spectrum of these platelets corresponds with kaolin very nicely in both Harrit at all and Millette's progress report. The fact that such an easily identifiable material was missed/ignored by the paper's authors speaks volumes.

We have little idea what the TEM data shows in total, but snippets have come out. Those snippets show that it's far more probable that kaolin was present in the sample. We also know from those snippets that Sr and Cr were identified. That should have set alarm bells ringing. We have a higher detailed EDX spectrum of the red layer that shows both strontium and chromium were present in a sample. Here is the spectrum:



You can clearly see that this chip is labelled as coming from the MacKinlay sample of dust. That sample is identified as sample 1 In Harrit et al. The chip that corresponds to the MacKinlay dust sample in Fig 7 in Harrit et al is labelled as a).

If you look at the above EDX spectrum then you can clearly see it is labelled as "Label A: Chip Cross Section".

That strongly suggests that this spectrum is simply a far more detailed spectrum of chip a) in Fig 7.

We therefore know that the TEM data correlated with the EDX data in some respect. We don't know if chip a) was the same chip that was subjected to both EDX and TEM or whether the other chips b,c,d were, however, from your video we know that Farrer was accused of having the wrong chip, even though this chip was subjected to a number of tests:

Quote:
This was in spite of the fact that the TEM specimen was prepared from the same chip that was used in many of the other tests.
So we know that there was some debate as to what was included in the paper and the fact that other people involved were already of a certain mindset.

We know from this statement that TEM analysis was conducted before the paper was published and conducted on a chip (or chips) that was subjected to other tests.

There is some ambiguity here because the chips a-d), which were analysed in the SEM, were broken in half in order to analyse the cross-section, which would provide a fresh surface free from contamination. So the other half of a chip could very well be prepared for TEM analysis whist the other half ended up being used for DSC or ignition tests.

I'd make a bet that the chip that Farrer analysed using TEM was on of the halves of one of the four chips labelled a-d) in Harrit et al.

The TEM analysis on any of those 4 chips would not have shown pure Al because it was not present. The compound containing Al was kaolin as evidenced by the atomic ratio between Al and Si that has been stated by Farrer.

The screen wasn't blank at all, it just showed something that didn't confirm the hypothesis. Is that fraud? Well probably not in general terms, but data that was not compatible with pure Al or the thermite hypothesis was certainly ignored.

This paper was a collective effort. You can easily see that there are a different authors. For example, the section under Materials Characterisation is certainly written by a person or persons who are familiar with writing such description. It's akin to something I would have written and still do.

However, the fact of the matter is, the rest of the paper is a mish-mash that draws wrongful conclusions. It's just a crappy paper that has no relevance outside of the narrow spectrum that is truther fantasy.
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 29th June 2015, 12:20 PM   #299
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Basque Arch, I can't answer your question because I don't know.
The question simply lacks the critical "Don't know/Undecided", option.

My suspicion would be "yes", I could not say "no", but there is the possibility that the data simply made no sense at all and was omitted for that reason.

However, that would seem to be bad press for BYU's TEM lab. Flies in the face of the advertising they gave of it.

Quote:
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,”

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th June 2015 at 12:26 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 29th June 2015, 12:33 PM   #300
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Curious, I cannot seem to find an archive for Frontiers Magazine before 2008. Were they not online then and have just not digitized older issues?
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 29th June 2015, 05:12 PM   #301
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,790
Hoax as is the rest of the truth movement.
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 29th June 2015, 06:31 PM   #302
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...I gave the most benign interpretation possible to the Farrer quote about the TEM results. But I agree that suggesting to their lead researcher that he may have used the "wrong chips" was a jawdropping revelation to me. Going forward to publication with only the slimmest of evidence was the wrong thing to do. Withholding the TEM and FTIR data when it was promised leaves me thinking they probably ARE hiding something. I may be wrong about that, but in light of Oystein's quotes re Jones and the readings they talked about in the TEM, now it seems that Jones has contradicted himself. Does the TEM data show Al or not? Oystein's quote says yes, my quote of Jones saying they couldn't find ANY aluminum in the TEM or followup test says no. Make the data public and we won't have to guess. Jones et al cannot be taken seriously, their paper is incomplete at best and fails in its goal of proving thermite..
You are assigning contradiction to Jones because you have no idea what you are talking about. Even after all the previous discussion here, and our email discussions before that, you STILL do not understand what Jones was saying in those comments about the TEM and XRD,
<snip>

For the last time: The TEM shows aluminum as Jones said, in SOME form, but it was inconclusive in determining whether or not that aluminum is elemental or in an aluminum compound, and therefore inconclusive regarding the exact FORM of aluminum. The XRD was also inconclusive. These tests may have been inconclusive because the aluminum is in an exotic amorphous form, or the samples may have been too small to be useful. Either way, these tests do not either support or debunk the Harrit paper, these results do not add any information and as such are not really publishable.

As I told you in our emails, if you would try to misrepresent these test as a debunking of pure aluminum you would also debunk Millette´s paper at the same time because they do not identify an aluminum compound either, that is no kaolin. But you chose to leave that little tid-bit out of your video, and you even give the impression that these tests agree with Millette´s finding of no pure aluminum. You might want to ponder that a little bit before you accuse others of "hiding something"!


Edited by Loss Leader:  Uncivil comments edited, Rule 0

Last edited by Loss Leader; 29th June 2015 at 07:51 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 29th June 2015, 06:56 PM   #303
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...The minute you try to assert fraud or a hoax, the burden of proof is on you, not them. We now know all we need to know to show that their conclusions are wrong, and we even have an inside peek into their behavior. That's enough for me.
You really think you can make big statements about the behavior of others? In any case, the first one you should make consider the burden of proof regarding accusing others of fraud is you.

In this case you have managed to imply that Farrer et al buried the TEM data for the aluminum bearing plates when the Bentham paper went to publishing, but just like always the only evidence is your word and your interpretation of what others have said. And in this case it happens to be comments in an alleged email that we have not seen, which means at best the context is missing.

You have quoted the 911blogger letter by Dr Jones repeatedly, including the TEM comments, but you fail to note that he also says right there:

Quote:
"Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. "
So, Jones and Farrer did TEM analysis on the platelets after the paper was published, not before, and this is the TEM data you have been quoting Jones on. This does not rule out that Farrer also did some TEM analysis before the paper was published, but if that was the case, was he then studying something else than the aluminum plates? Maybe trying to identify materials only found in trace amounts, like copper, chromium etc? Did you bother to make sure you had all the facts and that you understood everything in context, my dear?

You stepped into a big doodoo this time and it won´t wash off easily
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 29th June 2015, 07:26 PM   #304
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,153
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
You really think you can make big statements about the behavior of others? In any case, the first one you should make consider the burden of proof regarding accusing others of fraud is you.

In this case you have managed to imply that Farrer et al buried the TEM data for the aluminum bearing plates when the Bentham paper went to publishing, but just like always the only evidence is your word and your interpretation of what others have said. And in this case it happens to be comments in an alleged email that we have not seen, which means at best the context is missing.

You have quoted the 911blogger letter by Dr Jones repeatedly, including the TEM comments, but you fail to note that he also says right there:



So, Jones and Farrer did TEM analysis on the platelets after the paper was published, not before, and this is the TEM data you have been quoting Jones on. This does not rule out that Farrer also did some TEM analysis before the paper was published, but if that was the case, was he then studying something else than the aluminum plates? Maybe trying to identify materials only found in trace amounts, like copper, chromium etc? Did you bother to make sure you had all the facts and that you understood everything in context, my dear?

You stepped into a big doodoo this time and it won´t wash off easily
How embarrassing.

You show up yet again and fail to address several posts directed your way.

What cowardly behavior.
ProBonoShill 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 29th June 2015, 07:59 PM   #305
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
...
You have quoted the 911blogger letter by Dr Jones repeatedly, including the TEM comments, but you fail to note that he also says right there:

Quote:
Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample.
So, Jones and Farrer did TEM analysis on the platelets after the paper was published, not before, and this is the TEM data you have been quoting Jones on. This does not rule out that Farrer also did some TEM analysis before the paper was published, but if that was the case, was he then studying something else than the aluminum plates? Maybe trying to identify materials only found in trace amounts, like copper, chromium etc?
Thanks, I missed that phrase, too, leading into the latest bit of debate. Now I know why I always assumed the TEM-work was done after the paper was published.

I guess Chris has to explain why he believes TEM data already existed before the paper was submitted, or retract. Which I know Chris, being a gentleman of class, will not hesitate to do.


Now Ziggi, there were a few questions directed at you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8#post10731198
__________________
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 30th June 2015, 03:16 AM   #306
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,790
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
You are assigning contradiction to Jones because you have no idea what you are talking about. Even after all the previous discussion here, and our email discussions before that, you STILL do not understand what Jones was saying in those comments about the TEM and XRD,
<snip>

For the last time: The TEM shows aluminum as Jones said, in SOME form, but it was inconclusive in determining whether or not that aluminum is elemental or in an aluminum compound, and therefore inconclusive regarding the exact FORM of aluminum. The XRD was also inconclusive. These tests may have been inconclusive because the aluminum is in an exotic amorphous form, or the samples may have been too small to be useful. Either way, these tests do not either support or debunk the Harrit paper, these results do not add any information and as such are not really publishable.

As I told you in our emails, if you would try to misrepresent these test as a debunking of pure aluminum you would also debunk Millette´s paper at the same time because they do not identify an aluminum compound either, that is no kaolin. But you chose to leave that little tid-bit out of your video, and you even give the impression that these tests agree with Millette´s finding of no pure aluminum. You might want to ponder that a little bit before you accuse others of "hiding something"!


Edited by Loss Leader:  Uncivil comments edited, Rule 0
If the TEM data were made public there would be no doubt, not any fault of ours that the TEM
And other data is not public.
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 30th June 2015, 05:36 AM   #307
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
In this case you have managed to imply that Farrer et al buried the TEM data for the aluminum bearing plates when the Bentham paper went to publishing, but just like always the only evidence is your word and your interpretation of what others have said. And in this case it happens to be comments in an alleged email that we have not seen, which means at best the context is missing.

You have quoted the 911blogger letter by Dr Jones repeatedly, including the TEM comments, but you fail to note that he also says right there:

So, Jones and Farrer did TEM analysis on the platelets after the paper was published, not before, and this is the TEM data you have been quoting Jones on. This does not rule out that Farrer also did some TEM analysis before the paper was published, but if that was the case, was he then studying something else than the aluminum plates? Maybe trying to identify materials only found in trace amounts, like copper, chromium etc? Did you bother to make sure you had all the facts and that you understood everything in context, my dear?

You stepped into a big doodoo this time and it won´t wash off easily

Jeffrey Farrar:
Quote:
“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.”

Jones:
Quote:
I will say that 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.

Jones again - this post was dated and time-stamped as Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:58pm
Quote:
I should also note that Dr. Farrer is using TEM to further explore the ~100 nm across faceted iron oxide grains, so we will soon know more about these including pinning down the oxidation state I expect. Thus, we may soon have more answers (not just for you, of course -- we want to know!)
http://911blogger.com/node/19761

What date was the Harrit at al paper published? The first thread on the old JREF was started on 4 April 2009. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...+thermite+2009

That comment from Jones is a day later if it's in the stupid US date format.

Sounds very much like the some TEM work was done before the paper was published. And why wouldn't you do that work when you've got a specialist in that field in charge of a world class TEM lab doing the SEM and DSC work?

Why did they publish when more work was ongoing? Why did they publish when they have only semi-identified one major material out of the 4 in the red/gray chips?

It's interesting to see you won't dare reply to any of the questions Oystein has put to you or comment on the comparisons of data I've put up. Instead you are trying to score worthless points.

Here's another item to add to your to do list:

1. Obtain a single red/gray chip from the like of Jones, Farrer, Basile, etc.
2. Get them to publish the FTIR data like they promised.

and now

3. Get Farrer to publish the TEM data.

Jones tried but failed
Quote:
I have encouraged Dr. Farrer to write up and publish his TEM findings.
May be you will have better luck.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 30th June 2015 at 05:38 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2015, 06:12 AM   #308
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
Jones again - this post was dated and time-stamped as Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:58pm
http://911blogger.com/node/19761

What date was the Harrit at al paper published? The first thread on the old JREF was started on 4 April 2009. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...+thermite+2009

That comment from Jones is a day later if it's in the stupid US date format.
Both the threads at JREF and 911Blogger were opened on April 04, 2009, in reaction to the publication of the paper at Bentham, probably only about a day earlier.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Sounds very much like the some TEM work was done before the paper was published.
Actually, taking Jones at face value, sound very much like TEM work was ongoing as the paper was published.

Some time passes between submission of a paper and its eventual publishing - the time needed for some peer-review (remember: A peer-review, while not conducted properly, did happen), re-writing the draft as a reaction to the peer-reviewer's recommendations, re-submission, ... publish. I vaguely remember that the paper was initially submitted in, like, October 2008, at any rate several months before Jones making those remarks in April 2009.
The important point here is that "some" TEM work was done before publish date, we don't know if "any" was done by the time they submitted, let alone if any was finished.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Why did they publish when more work was ongoing?
I don't think this is unusual at all. Publish or perish - if you feel you have enough material, go ahead and publish, and then publish again when you have material for a second paper.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Why did they publish when they have only semi-identified one major material out of the 4 in the red/gray chips?
Now that's a good question.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
It's interesting to see you won't dare reply to any of the questions Oystein has put to you or comment on the comparisons of data I've put up. Instead you are trying to score worthless points.
This is a common and recurring experience when debating truthers: When you ask them specific, separate questions, you will not get specific, separate and honest answers that actually fit the question. If truthers ever answered questions truthfully, they'd no longer be truthers.
__________________
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 30th June 2015, 06:24 AM   #309
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Sunstealer's conjectures point to the correct answer to Oystein's question to me re TEM timing. I can't say more than that.
As for the Jones quote, "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."
Oystein, since I don't trust Ziggi, can you (or maybe Sunstealer) explan if my interpretation of that quote is indeed wrong (the one that appears to contradict the one you have)? I will certainly retract my statement about the "contradiction" if I am wrong.
__________________
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; 30th June 2015 at 06:26 AM. Reason: incomplete
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 30th June 2015, 06:45 AM   #310
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Sunstealer's conjectures point to the correct answer to Oystein's question to me re TEM timing. I can't say more than that.
As for the Jones quote, "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."
Oystein, since I don't trust Ziggi, can you (or maybe Sunstealer) explan if my interpretation of that quote is indeed wrong (the one that appears to contradict the one you have)? I will certainly retract my statement about the "contradiction" if I am wrong.
I have asked Ziggi several times now to reconcile your quote of Jones', with his claim that elemental aluminum was found. I have asked him what the exact context of this quote is, since he accuses you of taking it out of context. So far all I can recall is Ziggi saying that the conclusions paragraphs of the paper are the context in which to take that quote. That however does not reconcile how it fits with the conclusion.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 30th June 2015 at 06:46 AM.
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 30th June 2015, 09:02 AM   #311
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,869
The best science 911 truth has.

Quote:
....
You stepped into a big doodoo this time and it won´t wash off easily
Jones thermite paper proves there are gullible people, and they follow blindly.
__________________
"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 30th June 2015, 01:20 PM   #312
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
As for the Jones quote, "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."
Oystein, since I don't trust Ziggi, can you (or maybe Sunstealer) explan if my interpretation of that quote is indeed wrong (the one that appears to contradict the one you have)? I will certainly retract my statement about the "contradiction" if I am wrong.
I am not sure right now where to find that interpretation of yours. Let me just try to explain my interpretation:

The Jones-quote was made in the context of Farrer trying to use his TEM-equipment to identify characteristic crystal patterns in aluminium-bearing particles. Jones doesn't say it outright, but apparently this was done using a method such as "TEM-SAED":
Electrons are shot at high energy through a very thinly sliced specimen. "High energy" translates to electrons behaving like waves at the scales (order of magnitude 100 nm and smaller) we are talking about, If the atoms in the specimen have regular distances between them, such as in a crystal lattice, the electron waves will be diffracted in regular angles, resulting in a distinct pattern on the screen when detected. The pattern informs you about parameters of the crystal lattice, they are characteristic for the various crystalline materials, including, for example, kaolin (an aluminium silicate), alumina, elemental Al, silica...
When Jones says "there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound" what he says is that they could not clealy identify kaolin, nor alumina, nor elemental Al (the latter is infered: Had they been able to clearly identify elemental Al, they would have shouted it from every pedestal and written it on every wall in huge letters). It does NOT mean that there wasn't any Al at all (compound or elemental) in those particles!
Jones speculates that this non-result (no clear crystal pattern) could point to amorphous (glassy, non-crystalline) aluminium. This is possible, but unusual. Other explanations are easily possible and more usual (bad sample quality...).

Another analytical method available with the TEM toolkit is "TEM-XEDS" - we are more familiar with this: It's the measurement of X-rays emitted by the atoms within the specimen after they have been excited by electrons. In the letter to an anonymous researcher at 911Blogger, Jones related Farrer's finding of Al and Si in the platelet particles at a mass rate of 0.92:1. This is equivalent to an atomic rate of 0.96 (for every 100 atoms of silicon, there are 96 atoms of Al), and that Farrer considers this, within the margin of error of the method, as "consistent with unity", i.e. consistent with equal amounts of Si and Al. Now this finding is indicative of a chemical compound that has equal numbers of Si and Al atoms in its chemical formula - such as the formula for Kaolin!
Jones, Farrer, Harrit want to make us believe that the platelets are really elemental aluminium that's somehow mixed with, or coated, with silicon, or perhaps silicon oxide (also called silica), as opposed to a chemical compound of Al with Si. But seeing the atomic proportions so close to unity would then be a slight bit surprising - it could be anything. Hard to understand anyway why this material, if it were thermitic, always contains at least as much Si as Al (sometimes, in the non-LaClede-type chips, twice as much Si).


To sum up, my interpretation is:
TEM-XEDS of the thin hexagonal platelets shows presence of Al and Si in about equal amounts
The equal amount would be typical for a compound such as kaolin, but coincidence if Al were not chemically bound with the Si.
Therefore I say that this result, coming from Farrer's "TEM"-studies, is an indication (though not proof), or rather a corroboration, that there is an Al-compound (specifically: kaolin, cause it lools like kaolin, and Millette identified identically-looking platelets as kaolin)
They then tried to pinpoint the nature of the compound with TEM-SAED, but that method had only inconclusive results - can't say the Al is in a compound, can't say it's elemental.

Even shorter:
They did two different tests with the Transmittion Electrom Microscope:
- TEM-SAED did not produce results that speak for or against any Al-compound
- TEM-XEDS on the other hand produced a result that is indicative of a compound / corroborates kaolin, though that's not definitive proof.
__________________
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 30th June 2015, 06:13 PM   #313
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
@ Chris

There is a little bit of a problem with determining the chronological order of Farrer's TEM work so I had a look at the quote. When Jones says, and lets use the full quote:

Quote:
I will say that 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.
Then we know he is referring to the work Farrer did using TEM on finding pure aluminium. Considering that the Al is only present in the form of Si-Al-O platelets in chips a-d) and the fact that Farrer has acknowledged performing a TEM test to determine the ratio of Al:Si on one of the same chips used in the paper, then it is highly likely that Jones is referring to that TEM analysis on the hexagonal platelets.

Now of course the TEM analysis that Farrer performed certainly did show that there was an "aluminium bearing compound". He disregards kaolin as being present due the Al:Si ratio, but only because the test found a ratio of 0.92 rather than 1.00. Kaolin has the chemical formula Al2Si2O5(OH)4. You wouldn't expect to get a 1:1 atomic ratio in a compound with the same number of Al and Si atoms because Al and Si (atoms) have different atomic weights. The atomic weight ratio of Al:Si is 0.961.

Al atomic weight = 26.981539
Si atomic weight = 28.0855

26.981539/28.0855*100 = 0.961 (rounded to 3 dp)

That's damn close. Kaolin is a natural material and not pure. Depending on where it's been mined then it has different levels and types of impurities, so a perfect 1:1 atomic ratio of Al:Si is not possible.

A quick google digs up this in which Jones states:

Quote:
Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample. We found that the Al and Si are in fact NOT in equal amounts; the Al:Si ratio came out to approximately 0.92 (based on atomic wt %, TEM focused on a platelet.) How could this be the mineral kaolinite as you suggest, for which the Al:Si ratio is exactly 1.0? Formula: Al2Si2O5(OH)4 .

The accuracy of the TEM analysis should allow you (and Millette) to determine if you are indeed looking at the same material that we reported on, beginning with the Al:Si ratio.

I encourage you to do TEM analysis as we have done. Studying electron-diffraction patterns obtained with the TEM, Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us.
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-0...-chip-analyses

So there we have it, they did get a ratio using atomic weights, but they failed to take into account the different atomic weights of Al and Si which would have made the result of approximately 0.92 much closer to the ideal value of 0.961 and not the chemical 1:1.

We can also see from this statement that the work on the iron oxide particles that was ongoing at the time of the publication of the paper did in fact determine that these were of the oxidised state consistent with Fe2O3.

Now bear in mind that the red/gray chips cannot be analysed by TEM "as is" because they are too thick. In fact the red layer itself is too thick to perform such analysis because electrons will not pass through such a thick layer. The "T" in TEM stands for transmission and therefore the sample to be analysed must be of sufficient thinness for electrons to pass through.

It's stating the bleeding obvious, but Farrer knows how to prepare a sample for TEM. They didn't use low temperature ashing (LTA) as Millette did in order to isolate and examine the hexagonal platelets, but as Jones says, they were isolated well for the TEM analysis.

You'll note that Jones encourages Millette to perform TEM analysis on the hexagonal platelets. Millette does exactly that. When truthers, including Jones, accuse Millette of isolating the wrong chips, then how do they explain the fact that not only does Millette separate the red/gray chips by the same method, but also goes on to do exactly what Jones is asking for regarding the platelets?

In Millette's progress report he provides all of the data for the TEM-SAED experiment including the pattern.

Jones asked for it. Jones got it. Jones ignored it.


Farrer did not get a pattern that he recognised. Compare and contrast these two statements from Jones:

Quote:
But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results.
Quote:
Dr. Farrer found that that the iron-oxide was in the form Fe2O3. He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method,
That is somewhat surprising, bearing in mind Farrer's professional position. There is a difference between not recognising a pattern, no clear pattern and there not being one. However, we also have other quotes from Farrer. In a transcript that Miragememories made from a video Farrer is quoted as saying:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Physicist Jeff Farrer:" There were other particles present in the red layer. There were some plate-like particles and those again, were consistent throughout the red layer, throughout all of the samples that we found. Those appeared to have higher aluminum and silicone peaks in their compositional analysis and one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials. The red layer is not a naturally occurring material. Sure you have iron oxide everywhere that you have iron you get an iron oxide. But you don't get them in nice little 100 nanometer rhombohedral shaped particles inside of a very small red layer. By the way, just to give you a reference on the size, these particles that are in the red layer are thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. So these are very sophisticated particles of very sophisticated materials. Not materials that we would expect to find in the demolition debris of a building. In order to get that kind of consistency with shape and size and to be that small, these really are sophisticated materials. And probably only developed in a laboratory. They maybe processed outside a laboratory but they are developed in a laboratory."MM
So he's half-way there but fails to make the connection with iron oxide pigment.

And:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Eventually Steve came to me and said; "we're finding these red/gray chips", and I didn't really think anything of it. They could have been anything.. The significant thing about the red/gray chips was not just the frequency that they were finding them, but also, they were attracted by a magnet which was his method for pulling out these spheres. So he was pulling out the spheres as well as the red/gray chips. And so he came to me and said; "were getting some interesting compositional analysis from the red layer of these red/gray chips, we're actually seeing peaks of aluminum ", as well as other things, but the aluminum peak was significant. He would find those aluminum peaks as well as iron peaks and oxygen peaks and various other peaks. But the aluminum, the iron, and the oxygen together were very significant because this is your composition for thermite. So that is when I started to get a little bit more interested and more interested in these red/gray chips. But I didn't really start working on these red/gray chips and Steve and Daniel were continuing to find things about the chips and they would bring that information to me and eventually I said, "okay."

So now what we have is from the composition of the red layer, we have an aluminum peak, we have a silicone peak, we have the iron and the oxygen as well as other peaks.

So we were looking at clean edges in order to get the composition and that is where we found the silicone, as well as the aluminum peaks and the iron and oxygen peaks in abundance and throughout all of the red layers in all of these chips.

Additional studies in the TEM (transmission electron microscope) found these were iron oxide phases. There were other particles present in the red layer. There were some plate-like particles and those again, were consistent throughout the red layer, throughout all of the samples that we found. Those appeared to have higher aluminum and silicone peaks in their compositional analysis and one of the significant things that we find in the red layer is the fact that these particles that we find in the red layer are..the fact that they are consistent. The fact that they are consistent in shape, in composition, and in size, leads me to believe that these are not naturally occurring materials."[/i]

MM
Therefore it looks like he was persuaded to get involved after Jones and Daniel Farnsworth were already doing the SEM work. Interesting.

Those transcriptions clearly show that Farrer had little idea that naturally occurring minerals do in fact have consistent shape, composition and size. Nor the fact that such naturally occurring minerals can be sorted according to particle size via a number of methods to produce a material that is used in many, many applications. A simple (grade of) sieve will separate different grades of material. He then goes on to acknowledge that the data Millette publishes is in fact the same material as he studied.

Jeffrey Farrar:

Quote:
“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.”
Note the fact that he says the kaolin particles are identical to the particles he observed in both SEM and TEM. How can truthers reconcile that observation?

This brings me on to the XRD analysis that was performed by an unknown lab on an unknown chip.

We don't have any information regarding the specific chip or the preparation of the sample that they had analysed by XRD in this unknown lab. I suspect it was performed at BYU.

In Harrit et al, we have very little idea which chips underwent certain tests. We know about chips a-d regarding SEM and EDX. They are clearly labelled and represent 4 identical chips taken from the 4 dust samples. We know that the chip in Figs 12, 13 and 14 was from dust sample 2 and subjected to MEK but there were others. The EDX of the red layer shows that this chip did not share the same EDX characteristics as those from chips a-d).

The red layer is a different material.

We certainly don't know which chips were subjected to ignition tests and certainly not the chips in the DSC test. In fact the dust sample labelled as 2, which corresponds with the Delessio/Breidenbach dust sample, is not represented in the DSC test. We have data on a single chip from that dust sample, it's chip b).

So what were they subjecting XRD to in this unknown lab? Was it the same chip that Farrer had used to get a thin section from in his TEM analysis? Was the sample this very same thin section? We simply have no idea. Bearing in mind that we know they had two different red materials adhered to oxidised steel then perhaps this red material was a third red material that had no aluminium present at all! We just have no idea.

Jones expected the results from whatever lab they arranged to perform the XRD testing to show an Al compound. If I had a specimen that I knew contained Al from other analysis techniques then I too would be stumped. I would know Al is definitely present and therefore would check I had the correct specimen and then look at why I wasn't seeing something that was there.

The XRD experiment is a null point in the data. It's meaningless. This ended up a very long post. I hope it helps to clarify.
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 30th June 2015, 06:23 PM   #314
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,864
Millette used TEM this that and the other and didn't have trouble in identifying kaolin,epoxy matrix, steel, etc. = paint on steel.
One doesn't need a course in the philosophy of ethics;Science ethics are pretty clear and defined. The Bentham authors withheld vital contrary data = scientific fraud, scientific falsifying, scientific misconduct.

eta: thanks for the work of Ivan Kminek, Oystein, the almond, Sunstealer, Farrer, Millette, chrismohr.
I hope that Basile joins the rationals and comes clean.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 30th June 2015 at 07:38 PM.
BasqueArch 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 30th June 2015, 06:52 PM   #315
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The only word I can use to describe the 9/11 Truth CD Theory is "wrong." I go mad when I try to understand the intentions and motives of others. So I won't bother with calling it a fraud or a hoax or misconduct.
It becomes recycled garbage after a while. Same old same old.
Playing Games 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 30th June 2015, 07:33 PM   #316
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post

...Jones again - this post was dated and time-stamped as Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:58pm

Quote:
I should also note that Dr. Farrer is using TEM to further explore the ~100 nm across faceted iron oxide grains, so we will soon know more about these including pinning down the oxidation state I expect. Thus, we may soon have more answers (not just for you, of course -- we want to know!)
http://911blogger.com/node/19761
What date was the Harrit at al paper published? The first thread on the old JREF was started on 4 April 2009. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...+thermite+2009

That comment from Jones is a day later if it's in the stupid US date format.

Sounds very much like the some TEM work was done before the paper was published.

...
According to the publisher the paper was published on April 3 2009. This means you have Dr. Jones 2 days after the publishing of the paper on April 5 saying that Dr. Farrer "is" doing TEM analysis on the iron-oxide grains. That most certainly does NOT "sound like" TEM work was done before the paper was published.

That´s not all. We are not talking about just any TEM analysis. Chris Mohr has implied specifically that Harrit et al did the TEM analysis of the aluminum bearing platelets before the paper was published, and that they did not include it in the paper because it did not agree with the paper.

Now, going back to the Dr. Jones comment that you partially quote above: Jones begins that comment by saying he is traveling, meaning he is not doing TEM work with Farrer. Also note that he said Farrer "is" working on TEM analysis of the iron-oxide grains, not the aluminum platelets. But in a comment elsewhere in 2012, Jones said that he AND Farrer did the TEM analysis of the platelets together:

Quote:
Dr Farrer and I did some work with Transmission Electron Microscopy after the paper was published, looking at aluminum-containing platelets which we were able to isolate quite well in the thin sample.
When taken together we see that Farrer started TEM work on the iron-oxide grains less than 48 hours the paper had been published, and that his TEM analysis with Jones on the aluminum platelets was done later, after Jones had returned from his travelling. We don´t know if this was only days later or weeks later, the only thing we know for sure is that this often quoted TEM analysis of the aluminum bearing material was most definitely done after the Bentham paper had been published.

And more importantly, Chris Mohr had absolutely no evidence for his accusations against Harrit et al.
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 30th June 2015, 07:38 PM   #317
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,469
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
And more importantly, Chris Mohr had absolutely no evidence for his accusations against Harrit et al.
Still can't address the elephant in the room. Solder on "truth" warrior.
__________________
"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 30th June 2015, 09:37 PM   #318
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
...
And as you can see in my reply to Sunstealer above, it is quite clear that Jones and Farrer did that TEM work on those platelets after the paper had been published.
...
I for one already indicated that the timing of the TEM work is such that at least some of it came too late to be included in the paper - if we can believe SE Jones on that, which, in the absence of contrary evidence, is my ususal base assumption.


Now there are some open question regarding the meat and substance of the research done by Farrer, Jones, Millette, Basile and others, that you so far have ignored. I suspect you like to pretend those questions don't exist because they are extremely inconvenient to you. Anyway, here they are:


Please acknowledge that
  1. there is no evidence for platelets in the MEK-chip1
  2. there is no evidence for Al associated with Si in the MEK-chip prior to soaking in MEK2
  3. there is however evidence that Al and Si are not associated after MEK-soaking3
  4. the evidence is entirely consistent with Al and Si never habing been associated with each other in the first place in the MEK chip4
That's 4 separate claims of fact that I need you to acknowledge separately, clearly and honestly at this time.


You had claimed "so far it seems two different chips have been reported on, both with platelets".
I am very curious: Which two? Can you please assign the various relevant specimens to those two different (kinds of) chips that you are dreaming of?5 By what criteria do you decide that we have two different kinds? Please be specific, name the criteria in scientifically objective terms!6


Both the platelets and the grains in chips a-d are so regular in shape that it is almost inevitable to call them "crystalline". Do you agree that, at this scale, regular particle shape, with edges and points at recurring angles, is a very strong indicator of the material being a crystal phase?7 Crystal lattice structures are a standard way for material scientists and forensicists to identify chemical species. Do you agree with this?8


Please present a quote from Harrit et al from which it is clear that Harrit et al were at least aware that some of the chips are primer paint!9


When Basile says "some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at", which chips is he talking about, if not the chips in Harrit´s study?10

  1. According to Basile, how can a researcher differntiate between primer chips and "nanothermite" chips? Please list the criteria that basile presents in the interview (it's easy to find, he talks about this within 30 seconds of the aforementioned quote at 28:28).11 (you mentioned the "exotherm reaction" - but pleaser try to write the criteria down in an objective, scientific, unambiguous way)
  2. Do you agree that those are necessary and sufficient criteria to tell primer paint chips from "nanothermite" chips?12
  3. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to chips a-d?13
  4. Did Harrit et al apply those criteria to the MEK-chip?14
(If you do not agree that Basile is right about the criteria, then please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d and the MEK chip!)
Again, please make sure you give separate ansers to these separate questions!


Please quote the relevant passage from the Harrit et al paper that makes "clear from the start that the dust is full of all kinds of red material besides the thermitic chips, including paint chips"!15
Otherwise, retract this claim, please.


Please enumerate fully the objective, scientific criteria that any researcher of the red-gray chips ought to apply to separate paint chips from "nanothermite" chips16, and tell us if Harrit et al applied these criteria to chips a-d17 and the MEK chip!18


I need you to answer the following questions very clearly and very honestly:
  1. Did Harrit et al ignite chips a-d? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!19
  2. Did Harrit et al ignite the MEK-chip? Please provide evidence if your answer is "yes"!20


(Some of the questions overlap; for example 13 and 19)
__________________
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 1st July 2015, 02:25 AM   #319
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,885
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
You wouldn't expect to get a 1:1 atomic ratio in a compound with the same number of Al and Si atoms because Al and Si (atoms) have different atomic weights.
I think you're confusing atomic ratio - the ratio of the number of atoms present - with weight ratio, aren't you? It's the weight ratio that will be different to unity in pure aluminium silicate. A compound with the same number of Al and Si atoms has, by definition, an Al:Si atomic ratio of one.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Kaolin is a natural material and not pure. Depending on where it's been mined then it has different levels and types of impurities, so a perfect 1:1 atomic ratio of Al:Si is not possible.
That, I think, is a much simpler and clearer argument. Even if Jones corrected for atomic weight, it seems perfectly possible, indeed fairly likely, that the kaolinite in the samples has an 8% content of some other silicate, leading to an excess of silicon over aluminium. An excess of aluminium over silicon might be a little more difficult to explain, but an excess of silicon is trivial.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 1st July 2015, 05:13 AM   #320
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,616
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That, I think, is a much simpler and clearer argument. Even if Jones corrected for atomic weight, it seems perfectly possible, indeed fairly likely, that the kaolinite in the samples has an 8% content of some other silicate, leading to an excess of silicon over aluminium. An excess of aluminium over silicon might be a little more difficult to explain, but an excess of silicon is trivial.

Dave
Farrer's 0.92 ratio by weight is equivalent to 0.96 by atom number.

Here is a paper that analyses natural kaolin from Georgia, which has the most important kaolin deposits in the USA (annual production was estimated in 2004 as about 7,400,000 tons!!):
http://www.clays.org/journal/archive...1/41-4-514.pdf

Table 2 lists the weight ratios of the various metal oxides that make up the mineral (this is the geologists' way of thinking: They think of kaolinite as a "mix" of the simpler oxides - silica+alumina+magnesia+other metal oxides; the chemist would have the chemical bonds between the silicon and the metal atoms in mind and write differently).

For the finer (<44 µg) fraction of kaolin particles, these researcher found 45.1% SiO2 versus 39.2% Al2O3. If you insert standard atomic weights and crunch the numbers, you will find that this is equivalent to an atomic ration Al:Si of 0.984 (the third decimal is silly already). Ti:Si is 0.047, Fe:Si is 0.007, the other elements appear in much tinier fractions. O:Si is 2.05, by they way - would be interesting to know if Farrer quantified the O as well!
If you plug in values from the other columns, the Al:Si ratio comes out as 0.979 (left column) and 0.978 (right column).

Deposits from other sites no doubt have different amounts of impurities, and almost certainly will always show an Al:Si ratio slightly below 1.00.


Another paper on aluminium silicate minerals:
http://kyawlinnzaw.weebly.com/upload...mineralogy.pdf

Explains on page 22 (page 31 of the PDF file) that titanium probably rarely if ever substitutes for silicon (or Al), and instead is present as discrete inclusions. Iron, if present, substitutes for Al.

Table 13 on page 87 has weight ratios for kaolins from several sources. The "Cretaceous middle Georgia kaolin" has atomic Al:Si = 0.959 - that's practically identical to what Farrer found (although I suspect, after reading around page 33, that those Cretaceous would not be ideal candidates for the kaolin in Farrer's and Millette's chips)! The "Tertiary East Georgia kaolin" has an atomic ratio of 1.016.


(From page 67 onwards, Murray describes how kaolin is mined and processed - some intersting methods, such as wet magnetic separation of impurities, introduced in the mid-70s.)


Here is an interesting quote (my bolding):
Originally Posted by Murray
At a temperature between 550 and 600 °C (Fig. 60), kaolinite is dehydroxylated and the lattice structure of kaolinite becomes amorphous even though the particle shape is largely retained. This amorphous arrangement of the silica and alumina is retained until a temperature of about 980 °C is reached.
This is a bit of wild speculation, but could it be that Farrer and Jones tried to figure out the crystal structure of the platelets after they heated them to 700 °C? Millette did his low-temp ashing at no more than 400 °C. This could explain why Millette was able to identify the crystal lattice while Farrer and Jones were not. I consider the probability for this relatively low, though. They never mentioned the presence of platelets after ignition experiments (although they are there: Fig 21 of Harrit et al!), and it would pretty much defeat their conclusions anyway if they found the platelets (like the iron oxide grains) did not react after heating to 700 °C
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 1st July 2015 at 05:16 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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