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

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


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

Reply
Old 10th June 2014, 12:35 PM   #4641
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post

p.s. I see no date. Inspecting a photo tells me Jan 2014. I'm sure the $5k he's raised could pay for this simple test many times over.
Basile has started by doing completely useless tests that have nothing to do with the original proposal (what they raised the money for). Don't worry though, they say they will keep track of the money spent and anything they don't spend goes to Richard Gage.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=275738
__________________
"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 10th June 2014, 02:10 PM   #4642
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miragememories
My hypothesis was that Dr. Millette "likely" performed an unreported 430C heat test to satisfy his own curiosity.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
My hypothesis is that Harrit et al "likely" attempted to ignite their samples in an inert atmosphere, as this is such an obvious test it would occur to a 12-year old who has a slight knowledge of the materials in question. They failed, and chose not to publish that fact as it wouldn't suit their purpose.

See how it works, MM?
In my career as an industrial chemist, that's the first thing that would have occurred to me. A simple ignition test under a nitrogen atmosphere would have been the equivalent of dipping litmus or pH paper into a solution to see if it's acid. No pink litmus paper -> no acid. No ignition under nitrogen -> no thermite. Good enough test, though unsophisticated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miragememories
My hypothesis was not unreasonable and I gave a civil explanation for why I thought it probable that Dr. Millette did perform the test referred to.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It was hugely more likely that Harrit et al attempted the 'inert atmosphere ignition' test.

See how it works?
Maybe not. Truthers have repeatedly failed to follow through on obvious lines of investigation, such as interviewing FDNY personnel who supposedly "testified" to hearing suspicious explosions.

The obvious explanation is that deep down, they know that they're wrong, and are afraid to confirm it. So it's quite possible that Harrit didn't do this simple test, not wanting to prove to his own lying eyes that he's wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by carlitos
Again, I am embarrassed to have helped fund this nonsense. As others predicted, it accomplished exactly nothing. Let the truthers wallow in their ignorance. They aren't worth engaging.
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
I tend to disagree. I noticed a lot of infighting and truthers actually questioning their beliefs as a result of the study. More so than anything else I've seen since 2006. I think it turned a lot of opinions and really hurt the truth movement. Might have been the death nail for relatively sane truthers staying on board.

This is why there was/is such a furious attack on it. It hurt a certain Dick's wallet. I think it was a highly successful study in more than just identifying what was in the dust.
I think you're right, Justin. Trutherism is pretty much down to the hard-core crazies, and "nano-thermite" has pretty much fallen to the wayside.
Redwood 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 10th June 2014, 02:30 PM   #4643
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
In my career as an industrial chemist, that's the first thing that would have occurred to me. A simple ignition test under a nitrogen atmosphere would have been the equivalent of dipping litmus or pH paper into a solution to see if it's acid. No pink litmus paper -> no acid. No ignition under nitrogen -> no thermite. Good enough test, though unsophisticated.
But......this was super secret stuff and there was air at ground zero. (yes "truther" gurus did point this out early on). No one could know the properties.


__________________
"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 10th June 2014, 04:42 PM   #4644
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
... you're right, Justin. Trutherism is pretty much down to the hard-core crazies, and "nano-thermite" has pretty much fallen to the wayside.
Proof a fringe few failed to gain an education. 911 truth followers can't find evidence when posted, and don't do science. 911 truth movement, a celebration of ignorance.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Real science ignored by faith based 911 truth followers.

The Millette study published, freely on the Internet, 911 truth can't find it.

911 truth's 13th year of failure.

Last edited by beachnut; 10th June 2014 at 04:56 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 11th June 2014, 09:24 AM   #4645
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM once again you completely misrepresent Jim Millette.

I directly confronted him on everything you talk about here.

I asked him what he would do if he found thermite and he said, "If I find it I'll publish it." He also said he is used to presenting results his clients did not like.

Regarding the EPA, he reported dangerous Ph readings and a veritable witches' brew of toxic substances in the dust, which were praised by Cate Jenkins and used as honest measurements in her allegations against the EPA (hear that, Kevin Ryan?). In so doing he also completely contradicted the government claim that the air was safe to breathe a couple weeks after 9/11.

And BTW, he recommended to me people at other labs who could do DSC tests on the chips. He didn't have one in the office, but that would not have stopped him from doing the test if he thought it would be of any value.

He said that he found no thermite in the chips using standard forensic tests, and if the thermitic paper authors wanted to say the chips were incendieries they would have to come up with a new hypothesis about whast these chips are "because they are not thermite."

As for your mockery of my campfire experiment, if YOU had a sincere interest you would like to know if iron-rich microspheres can be found in a regular campfire.

That's the only question I am trying to answer. And again, my hypothesis is that we will not find them there. But we may both be wrong. You are setting the experiment up to be discounted in advance of it even being done, just in case we DO find the microspheres there.

It is not insincerity that keeps me from wasting Millette's time with asking his opinion of Dave Thomas's work.

And I'd really appreciate your revoking the accusation that Millette did a DSC test and didn't report the results. That IS NOT TRUE.

What IS true is that Kevin Ryan's FTIR results and Jeff Farrer's TEM results were not published or released.

You can be soooooo irritating.

You owe us an apology or at least a revocation of that accusation.

On one matter we do agree. I admire the courage of Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, etc. They have all paid a high price for publicly taking the stands that they have. But that does not make them right. Still, taking a strong stand for what they believe in, is a human attribute that is rare and which I support. Because sometimes people with that kind of courage are right.
"He didn't have one [DSC] in the office his laboratory, but that would not have stopped him from doing the test if he thought it would be of any value."

DR. MILLETTE DID NOT NEED A DSC TO PERFORM A ~430C HEAT TEST!

You know that. It has been pointed out repeatedly here, yet you persist in using it as a fallback argument.

His laboratory is equipped with a muffle furnace which he chose to use in a restricted fashion (he heated samples to 400C instead of ~430C). It is quite adequate for producing testable residue comparable to that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

The argument made for why he did not use the 430C heat is that it would have destroyed the sample.

It was then pointed out that once he finished collecting data from his 400C-treated samples, he had no scientific argument for not further heating all or some of that material to ~430C.

By your account, Dr. Millette was supposedly looking to retire, yet was supposedly keenly interested in this investigation.
All too conveniently, he became far too busy to publish his work, or spend a few minutes heating up his no longer needed samples for a quick peek under the microscope.

Unlike yourself, I very much doubt Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein would have been satisfied with such an oddly apathetic response.

The absurdity of your campfire hypothesis is the most desperate red herring I've seen in this thread. It is simply not worthy of more than the briefest of discussion. If you really think it is so worthwhile, why don't you make your own damn campfire instead of asking others to submit their leftovers?

"It is not insincerity that keeps me from wasting Millette's time with asking his opinion of Dave Thomas's work."

Really?

Do you think Dr. Millette is unqualified?

Everyone here opines about the quality and methodology of the work performed by Dr. Harrit et al.

Certainly, I would not expect Dr. Millette to waste his time investigating the quality of Dave Thomas's work.

But, I do believe it would only take him a brief moment to express his opinion about Dave's "trash barrel methodology".

"And I'd really appreciate your revoking the accusation that Millette did a DSC test and didn't report the results. That IS NOT TRUE."

Of course it is not true! I NEVER SAID IT.

A heat test does not equate to only a DSC test. You have made it perfectly clear that Dr. Millette does not possess a DSC.

Because he had the means, a muffle furnace, the no how, the time, and the intense interest, I hypothesized that he "likely" did a further heat test.

If it was an expensive, complex, time consuming test, I could better believe he didn't take a peek.

Regardless, his conclusion that his selected samples were a form of primer paint precludes any match with the highlighted material in the 2009 Bentham paper.

"What IS true is that Kevin Ryan's FTIR results and Jeff Farrer's TEM results were not published or released."

No one said they were published but I have seen a public release of Kevin Ryan's FTIR results. Regarding Dr. Farrer's TEM results being released to the public, I am not sure what you are referring to or how it changes what is already known.

"You owe us an apology or at least a revocation of that accusation."

For the reasons I've given, I still do not owe you an apology or revocation Chris.

It wasn't a lot of my money, but when Dr. Millette accepted it, I and others here became a stakeholders in his still unpublished endeavour.

Promises to test the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper remain broken, and the excuses for not performing the simple 430C heat test are extremely weak.

On Jan.24, 2012, a month before Dr. Millette presented a report on his findings, you posted:
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Here are some things that came up in my most recent conversation with Dr. Jim Millette, who is already well along in his study of the WTC dust:

His [Dr. Millette's] intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study... The Bentham paper does not report on having done a normal environmental forensic study of the components so Dr. Millette will do that, plus everything they did, plus other tests as needed.
And before we re-visit the argument that Dr. Millette did not find proof of unicorns thermite because none was observed, it is very important to note that it has been well argued that Dr. Millette must have worked on similar but different red chips from the many kinds found in the 9/11 WTC dust.

As you know, there are significant differences between the chips Dr. Millette examined and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MILLETTE SAMPLE

- electrical resistivity not measured
- small amounts of titanium found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer was softened
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not release any particles
- when heated to 400C and studied, no microspheroids of any kind were found
- when heated to ~430C... results remain unknown as Dr. Millette refused stakeholder requests to perform this simple but critical test, deeming it unnecessary.
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Here, I can agree with you[MM]. Millette can do this simple experiment. Only I doubt that he can really explain expected microspheres in the "ash" in detail (which processes exactly took place), but I can be wrong This is just my opinion."
BENTHAM SAMPLE

- reference test showed low electrical resistivity
- zero titanium was found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer showed a significant migration and segregation of aluminum
- some of this aluminum was found to be elemental form
- at 400C no microspheroids have been discovered to exist
- when heated to ~430C and studied, iron-rich microspheroids were found
- when heated to ~430C red chips found to be thermitic ignited with a strong exothermic peak

As a stakeholder in that research performed by Dr. Millette, I feel entitled to challenge his decision to stop short on his testing, especially since he has not published his findings or addressed the discrepancies that exist between the 9/11 WTC dust samples he chose to test and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 11th June 2014 at 09:31 AM.
Miragememories 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 11th June 2014, 10:01 AM   #4646
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
BENTHAM SAMPLE

- reference test showed low electrical resistivity
- zero titanium was found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer showed a significant migration and segregation of aluminum
- some of this aluminum was found to be elemental form
- at 400C no microspheroids have been discovered to exist
- when heated to ~430C and studied, iron-rich microspheroids were found
- when heated to ~430C red chips found to be thermitic ignited with a strong exothermic peak
Can you point me to the sample and chip that was run through ALL the tests above? I mean, in order to prove that a chip was thermitic, it needed to yield certain results from ALL the tests above right?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As a stakeholder in that research performed by Dr. Millette, I feel entitled to challenge his decision to stop short on his testing, especially since he has not published his findings or addressed the discrepancies that exist between the 9/11 WTC dust samples he chose to test and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Are you going to get on Harrit's case when he "stopped short" of doing a DSC test and publishing results regarding the Delassio sample?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case when he "stopped short" of doing a resistivity test any of the chips in his possession except for one?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case because he "stopped short" of testing resistivity for paint chips he had in his hands and instead tested paint chips from external sources?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case because he "stopped short" of analyzing the composition of paint chips he had in his hands and instead went to external written compositions?

If all the above tests and their results are important in determining if a chip was thermitic why did he fail to run ALL of them on ALL chips in his paper?
Gamolon 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 11th June 2014, 02:08 PM   #4647
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

MILLETTE SAMPLE

- attracted by a magnet
- electrical resistivity not measured
- small amounts of titanium found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer was softened
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not release any particles
- when heated to 400C and studied, no microspheroids of any kind were found
- when heated to ~430C... results remain unknown as Dr. Millette refused stakeholder requests to perform this simple but critical test, deeming it unnecessary.
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Here, I can agree with you [MM]. Millette can do this simple experiment. Only I doubt that he can really explain expected microspheres in the "ash" in detail (which processes exactly took place), but I can be wrong This is just my opinion."
BENTHAM SAMPLE

- attracted by a magnet
- reference test showed low electrical resistivity
- zero titanium was found on the surface of a clean slice
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer did not soften like paint
- when soaked in MEK for 55 hours the red layer showed a significant migration and segregation of aluminum
- some of this aluminum was found to be elemental form
- at 400C no microspheroids have been discovered to exist
- when heated to ~430C and studied, iron-rich microspheroids were found
- when heated to ~430C red chips found to be thermitic ignited with a strong exothermic peak
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Can you point me to the sample and chip that was run through ALL the tests above?

I mean, in order to prove that a chip was thermitic, it needed to yield certain results from ALL the tests above right?
Based on my understanding of the contents of the 2009 Bentham paper, a qualifying red chip from the 9/11 WTC dust would;

- have a measured electrical resistance dramatically lower than that of a red primer paint chip from the 9/11 WTC dust
- would have XEDS spectra showing no titanium above the level of noise on the surface of a clean slice
- would not soften when soaked in MEK for 55 hours
- would show a migration and segregation of aluminum after the 55 hour MEK soaking
- would, after MEK soaking for 55 hours show some elemental aluminum
- would produce elemental-iron rich microspheroids when ignited at ~430C
- would produce a strong exothermic peak when ignited at ~430C

Before you start your usual rant about all or nothing, it should be pointed out that NO ONE publishes all their data in a paper.

Scientists publish the amount of data that they and their peers feel is necessary to confirm that paper's findings.

If you can find relevant published papers that contain ALL the data generated, more power to you.

In addition, the scientists, post publication, have stated in public that there were many different red chips. With time and experience they became so familiar with the outward appearance of candidate chips that it was not necessary to apply a regime of tests in order to filter out those that would ignite at ~430C and produce the evidence of thermite.

Dr. Millette lacked that experience which is why people like Dr. Jones wondered why he did not expedite his chip isolation by utilizing the electrical resistivity information published in the Bentham paper.

By only using red chips collected in bulk with a magnet, a method which does allow collection of thermitic red chips, Dr. Millette also collected every red chip that contained magnetically attracted content.

By not bothering to run a 430C heat test in his muffle furnace, Dr. Millette gained no familiarity with the visual differences between red chips that produced a thermitic reaction and those that simply burned to ash (primer paint).

In his unpublished findings, Dr. Millette concluded that his chips must be a formulation of some undetermined steel primer paint.

If steel primer paint behaved in a fashion similar to that observed with the highlighted red chips of the 2009 Bentham paper, Dave Thomas's trash barrel experiment would have been quite the dramatic show!


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
As a stakeholder in that research performed by Dr. Millette, I feel entitled to challenge his decision to stop short on his testing, especially since he has not published his findings or addressed the discrepancies that exist between the 9/11 WTC dust samples he chose to test and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Are you going to get on Harrit's case when he "stopped short" of doing a DSC test and publishing results regarding the Delassio sample?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case when he "stopped short" of doing a resistivity test any of the chips in his possession except for one?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case because he "stopped short" of testing resistivity for paint chips he had in his hands and instead tested paint chips from external sources?

Are you going to get on Harrit's case because he "stopped short" of analyzing the composition of paint chips he had in his hands and instead went to external written compositions?

If all the above tests and their results are important in determining if a chip was thermitic why did he fail to run ALL of them on ALL chips in his paper?
I believe I have addressed your questions.

It amazes me that you so stubbornly ignore the proof obtained.

Do you not care that hundreds of these thermitic chips have been found?

What possible legitimate reason could thermite have for being there, distributed throughout the 9/11 WTC dust?

Why does it matter whether or not Dr. Harrit et al performed the same tests on every single red chip?
Miragememories 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 11th June 2014, 02:14 PM   #4648
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Scientists publish the amount of data that they and their peers feel is necessary to confirm that paper's findings.
Wrong. They also need to provide enough data so others can confirm the findings.

Do you believe they provided this in the paper? (so far no one has been able to).

ETA:
Quote:
- have a measured electrical resistance dramatically lower than that of a red primer paint chip from the 9/11 WTC dust
- would have XEDS spectra showing no titanium above the level of noise on the surface of a clean slice
- would not soften when soaked in MEK for 55 hours
- would show a migration and segregation of aluminum after the 55 hour MEK soaking
- would, after MEK soaking for 55 hours show some elemental aluminum
- would produce elemental-iron rich microspheroids when ignited at ~430C
- would produce a strong exothermic peak when ignited at ~430C
Why is none of this part of the sample separation criteria?
__________________
"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; 11th June 2014 at 02:21 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 11th June 2014, 02:31 PM   #4649
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Scientists publish the amount of data that they and their peers feel is necessary to confirm that paper's findings."
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Wrong.

They also need to provide enough data so others can confirm the findings.

Do you believe they provided this in the paper? (so far no one has been able to).
Others being their scientist peers.

What do you believe is lacking from the 2009 Bentham paper that would have made it impossible for Dr. Millette to have duplicated their results?

The paper details what equipment was used and how.

Dr. Millette has his own supply of 9/11 WTC dust.

He has the necessary muffle furnace to ignite the isolated red chips.

He has the facility for performing microscopic examination and XEDS of the created residue.

He was unable to reproduce the results obtained by Dr. Harrit et al because he never attempted to.
Miragememories 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 11th June 2014, 02:53 PM   #4650
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Others being their scientist peers.

What do you believe is lacking from the 2009 Bentham paper that would have made it impossible for Dr. Millette to have duplicated their results?

The paper details what equipment was used and how.

Dr. Millette has his own supply of 9/11 WTC dust.

He has the necessary muffle furnace to ignite the isolated red chips.

He has the facility for performing microscopic examination and XEDS of the created residue.

He was unable to reproduce the results obtained by Dr. Harrit et al because he never attempted to.
The absence of aluminium.
Spanx 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 11th June 2014, 03:04 PM   #4651
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

What do you believe is lacking from the 2009 Bentham paper that would have made it impossible for Dr. Millette to have duplicated their results?
The poor separation criteria. They specified the method used to separate out the chips. They claim this is all that is needed but according to you, you need to perform all the tests. Why? They did not report any chips using their separation method that were not "thermetic". Poor science.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
He was unable to reproduce the results obtained by Dr. Harrit et al because he never attempted to.
He found chips that met the separation criteria. They also matched chemically. Why did they not also report chips separated that were not the same? Poor science.
__________________
"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; 11th June 2014 at 03:06 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 11th June 2014, 03:27 PM   #4652
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
MILLETTE SAMPLE


- when heated to ~430C... results remain unknown as Dr. Millette refused stakeholder requests to perform this simple but critical test, deeming it unnecessary.
It was unnecessary, and this has been explained to you repeatedly.

This is probably a good place to highlight that what Millette did, was provide an falsifiable test, easily repeatable, that Harrit et al could have checked. See, had the item been thermite, the results of the ashing would have yielded the components that made up thermite, thus proving the sample to contain some kind of thermite substance. It didn't and therefore Millette found no thermite. If Harrit wants to prove Millette wrong, he could repeat the test. But then, Harrit never found aluminum the first time, did he? Think he'll find some the second time around?
kid meatball 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 11th June 2014, 03:39 PM   #4653
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
MM:
It is also likely that the Harrit team knows their conclusions are false. This is why they refuse to share any known "thermite" chips because their bias forbids them from providing the evidence to disprove their claims.

I'm sure glad you clarified the definition of calling someone a liar.
__________________
"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 11th June 2014, 03:42 PM   #4654
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What do you believe is lacking from the 2009 Bentham paper that would have made it impossible for Dr. Millette to have duplicated their results?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
The absence of aluminium.
Really?

Making a quick perusal I found at least 4 references to a finding of aluminum (Al) in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Miragememories 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 11th June 2014, 04:03 PM   #4655
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Really?

Making a quick perusal I found at least 4 references to a finding of aluminum (Al) in the 2009 Bentham paper.
None of which was found in the post DSC residue, despite your insistence that the DSC residue is what proves it is thermite, and despite the fact that aluminum is a known product of thermite.
kid meatball 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 11th June 2014, 04:29 PM   #4656
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
The absence of aluminium.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Really?

Making a quick perusal I found at least 4 references to a finding of aluminum (Al) in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
None of which was found in the post DSC residue, despite your insistence that the DSC residue is what proves it is thermite, and despite the fact that aluminum is a known product of thermite.
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents.

In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present.

This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres.

Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1.

Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen…"
You were saying?
Miragememories 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 11th June 2014, 04:36 PM   #4657
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You were saying?
You would think they would have included the data, it is important after all. Instead they rely on trust. Poor science.
__________________
"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 11th June 2014, 05:41 PM   #4658
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You were saying?

There is no data to support that statement. Why do you believe it is true?
kid meatball 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 11th June 2014, 05:53 PM   #4659
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
There is no data to support that statement. Why do you believe it is true?
They used their real names on the internet. How could it not be true?!

__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 11th June 2014, 09:58 PM   #4660
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
There is no data to support that statement. Why do you believe it is true?

Twoofer is an ideology, not reality!
Dog Town 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 11th June 2014, 10:09 PM   #4661
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
Why do you believe it is true?
Lol.

I guess they didn't know they had to cater to the amateur internet crowd who have no ****** clue what scientific publishing entails.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 10
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by Loss Leader; 12th June 2014 at 08:36 AM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 10:27 PM   #4662
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol.

I guess they didn't know they had to cater to the amateur internet crowd who have no *** clue what scientific publishing entails.



LOL indeed!

Last edited by Loss Leader; 12th June 2014 at 08:37 AM.
Dog Town 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 11th June 2014, 10:46 PM   #4663
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You were saying?
Why doesn't the 2009 Bentham paper match known Thermite ?

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
Spanx 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 11th June 2014, 10:49 PM   #4664
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol.

I guess they didn't know they had to cater to the amateur internet crowd who have no *** clue what scientific publishing entails.
Really ?

Last edited by Loss Leader; 12th June 2014 at 08:40 AM. Reason: Rule 10
Spanx 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 25th July 2014, 03:20 PM   #4665
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Harrit et al
"…A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents.

In the case of this iron-rich spheroid, the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two, so substantial elemental iron must be present.

This result was repeated in other iron-rich spheroids in the post-DSC sample as well as in spots in the residue which did not form into spheres.

Spheroids were observed with Fe:O ratios up to approximately 4:1.

Other iron-rich spheres were found in the post-DSC residue which contained iron along with aluminum and oxygen…"
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You were saying?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Why doesn't the 2009 Bentham paper match known Thermite ?

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
You keeping posting the link to that paper yet you never attempt any explanation as how and why it supports your point of view?

If it somehow contradicts the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper please present your case.

I am assuming of course that you have some idea what it is you are attempting to say?
Miragememories 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 25th July 2014, 03:35 PM   #4666
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Mira?gememories View Post

If it somehow contradicts the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper please present your case.
This would be a reasonable request if the paper actual supported theirs.

We know, I does because they told you so..................
__________________
"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 25th July 2014, 10:49 PM   #4667
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You keeping posting the link to that paper yet you never attempt any explanation as how and why it supports your point of view?

If it somehow contradicts the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper please present your case.

I am assuming of course that you have some idea what it is you are attempting to say?
Which part of where is the Al in the 2009 Bentham paper don't you understand ?
Spanx 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 26th July 2014, 12:28 PM   #4668
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Why doesn't the 2009 Bentham paper match known Thermite ?

http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You keeping posting the link to that paper yet you never attempt any explanation as how and why it supports your point of view?

If it somehow contradicts the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper please present your case.

I am assuming of course that you have some idea what it is you are attempting to say?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Which part of where is the Al in the 2009 Bentham paper don't you understand ?
It might be easier to satisfy your question if you made it clearer that you understand what it is that you are asking.

The document you keep referring to without knowledgeable explanation shows no disagreement with the 2009 Bentham paper.

If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
Miragememories 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 26th July 2014, 01:19 PM   #4669
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It might be easier to satisfy your question if you made it clearer that you understand what it is that you are asking.

The document you keep referring to without knowledgeable explanation shows no disagreement with the 2009 Bentham paper.

If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
Please point out the which part corresponds with the Nano thermite found in the Bentham paper.

This should be easy for you being an expert in nano thermite and being Neils Harrit's right hand man.

I admit I am no expert in thermite (unlike yourself ) please school me with your expertise.
Spanx 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 27th July 2014, 02:30 AM   #4670
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
FeAl2O4 - a vitreous crystalline mineral, approx. 25% Fe by mass. Did they find any in the Harrit lab? The Chinese study quoted doesn't tell us how much was produced, just that it was produced.

Incidentally, in that study the only time FeAl2O4 was produced in air, there was no metallic Fe residue at all (table 3, final entry, first result), with a reaction temperature of 660°C. and residue still containing Fe2O3 and Al. To my (admittedly untrained) eye this looks like it isn't a thermitic reaction at all.

But the really bad news is that you've found a few more buzz words. No doubt they'll keep you guys happy for a few years, just as eutectic did
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   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 27th July 2014, 02:15 PM   #4671
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It might be easier to satisfy your question if you made it clearer that you understand what it is that you are asking.

The document you keep referring to without knowledgeable explanation shows no disagreement with the 2009 Bentham paper.

If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Which part of where is the Al in the 2009 Bentham paper don't you understand ?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
I admit I am no expert in thermite (unlike yourself ) please school me with your expertise.
I make no claim regarding such expertise. If you can show me the error in my understanding, feel free to do so.

You can obtain a copy of the 2009 Bentham paper here;

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Dr. Harrit´s paper has been available for reading for more than five years now, and the numerous graphs and figures are quite easy to read and understand, for most people.

The aluminum in the chips before ignition can be seen seen in figure 7.

The finding of elemental aluminum is shown in figure 17.

The aluminum in the post ignition residue is quite clearly shown in figures 25 and 26.

I am really surprised that this "no aluminum" statement is being raised. Even Oystein and Sunstealer never attempted to pretend that no aluminum can be found in Harrit´s paper.

What they did try and do was claim figure 17 showed aluminum in a chip that did not match the others, and, that Harrit did not prove a thermite reaction because he does not prove that the aluminum in figures 25 and 26 is in the form of Al2O3 aluminum oxide.

Your linked paper (http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf), provides an effective debunking of that argument by showing that the aluminum in the residue does NOT have to be in the form of Al2O3, because it can be found in aluminum-iron-oxygen compounds.

This bears particular consideration when you look at figures 25 and 26.
Miragememories 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 27th July 2014, 02:19 PM   #4672
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
FeAl2O4 - a vitreous crystalline mineral, approx. 25% Fe by mass. Did they find any in the Harrit lab? The Chinese study quoted doesn't tell us how much was produced, just that it was produced.

Incidentally, in that study the only time FeAl2O4 was produced in air, there was no metallic Fe residue at all (table 3, final entry, first result), with a reaction temperature of 660°C. and residue still containing Fe2O3 and Al. To my (admittedly untrained) eye this looks like it isn't a thermitic reaction at all.

But the really bad news is that you've found a few more buzz words. No doubt they'll keep you guys happy for a few years, just as eutectic did
Glenn, as I posted to Spanx, you can find Harrit´s aluminum in figures 25 and 26 and as you can gather from the paper cited by Spanx(http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf), it is pointless to argue about the form of the aluminum or in what amounts you find it or other materials. The notion that the residue has to be 100% pure Fe plus 100% Al2O3 is a myth, because the reaction continues:

"Products Fe, FeAl2O4, Fe3O4, α-Fe2O3, Al, γ-Fe2O3, Al2.667O4, FeO, and α-Al2O3were detected. These products imply that the reaction 2Al+Fe2O3→Al2O3+2Fe is only a theoretical equation; in fact, practical reactions would be far more complex."
Miragememories 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 27th July 2014, 03:24 PM   #4673
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.


What this means is that real-world nanothermite performs very poorly! You get FeAl2O4 instead of pure iron and aluminum oxide because nanometer-sized aluminum loses so much of its mass by oxidation to Al2O3, hence much of the Fe2O3 is only partially reduced. (You can look at FeAl2O4 from the standpoint of chemical composition as FeO (iron II oxide) + Al2O3.) The study actually shows that micron-sized Al outperforms nanometer-sized Al in a gel composition.

Harrit should go back and start looking for previously invisible micron-sized aluminum spheres in his samples, instead of trying to pass off obvious platelets of aluminum silicate as “nano-aluminum” platelets, which would perform even worse than nano-aluminum spheres!

Here’s the money quote from the article:

Quote:
The results showed that for thermites fueled by nano-Al, the reaction performance did not present obvious distinction. However, for thermites that used micro-Al as the reducing agent, the DSC peak temperatures of nanocomposite micro-Al/xeroFe2O3 was advanced by 68.1 deg C and 76.8 deg C respectively compared with simple mixtures. This reduction is referred to a distinct promotion of thermite reaction.
http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

In other words, micron-sized aluminum in thermite outperforms nano-meter sized aluminum, but formulating thermite into a gel makes it easier to ignite. That is all. Class dismissed.

Really, MM, it’s time for you to hang up your Truther hat, and get on with the business of living. You wasted years of your life as a Truther. Trutherism failed because it was never interested in the truth, but was instead powered by an agenda. This is deadly to genuine science. Steven Jones has moved on and is now touting electrical circuits that supposedly put out more energy that energy than what is put in. Next stop: he’ll be touting Dr. Quack’s Miracle Cure-All and Metal Polish.

MM, stop embarrassing yourself as one of the last of a dying breed; do yourself a favor and move on.
Redwood 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 July 2014, 02:51 AM   #4674
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I make no claim regarding such expertise. If you can show me the error in my understanding, feel free to do so.

You can obtain a copy of the 2009 Bentham paper here;

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Dr. Harrit´s paper has been available for reading for more than five years now, and the numerous graphs and figures are quite easy to read and understand, for most people.

The aluminum in the chips before ignition can be seen seen in figure 7.

The finding of elemental aluminum is shown in figure 17.

The aluminum in the post ignition residue is quite clearly shown in figures 25 and 26.

I am really surprised that this "no aluminum" statement is being raised. Even Oystein and Sunstealer never attempted to pretend that no aluminum can be found in Harrit´s paper.

What they did try and do was claim figure 17 showed aluminum in a chip that did not match the others, and, that Harrit did not prove a thermite reaction because he does not prove that the aluminum in figures 25 and 26 is in the form of Al2O3 aluminum oxide.

Your linked paper (http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf), provides an effective debunking of that argument by showing that the aluminum in the residue does NOT have to be in the form of Al2O3, because it can be found in aluminum-iron-oxygen compounds.

This bears particular consideration when you look at figures 25 and 26.
This is the interesting thing, The 2009 Bentham paper is obviously the only information about Thermite you you have ever read and you make claims that Harrit is a specialist in thermite.

If you go to the Science Direct website and search thermite you will get over a thousand results related to thermite, if you search any of the authors from the Bentham paper you will get zero results. Why is Harrit & Co not publishing in Science Direct ?

Why don't you do any research outside of the Bentham paper ?

Why did Harrit only find Al in the MEK soaked chip ? Did they find traces of Al in any of the other dust ? Did they even test any of the dust ?

At least you agree you are not an expert.

Last edited by Spanx; 28th July 2014 at 02:53 AM.
Spanx 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 July 2014, 06:58 AM   #4675
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Why did Harrit only find Al in the MEK soaked chip ?
What?
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Where is the Al in the Bentham paper ?
Thank you for showing your sole interest is to troll.
Miragememories 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 July 2014, 07:48 AM   #4676
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What?
Thank you for showing your sole interest is to troll.
Thanks for not answering any of my questions

How about you go to science direct and find me a thermite which ignites at 430c ? Oh hang on don't tell me...... Science Direct are in on it.

You can call me a troll all you like but coming from you means nothing and shows you have nothing to offer except your beloved 2009 Bentham paper which only fools the most gullible.

How is your youtube channel going oh well never mind.
Spanx 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 July 2014, 07:55 AM   #4677
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If you look at Table 3 for example, you will see all the different reaction products, which are most notably very diverse.

Of particular interest is that most often the intermetallic compound FeAl2O4 is there, so the aluminum does not necessarily have to end up as Al2O3.
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
What this means is that real-world nanothermite performs very poorly!

Here’s the money quote from the article:
Quote:
The results showed that for thermites fueled by nano-Al, the reaction performance did not present obvious distinction. However, for thermites that used micro-Al as the reducing agent, the DSC peak temperatures of nanocomposite micro-Al/xeroFe2O3 was advanced by 68.1 deg C and 76.8 deg C respectively compared with simple mixtures. This reduction is referred to a distinct promotion of thermite reaction.
http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

In other words, micron-sized aluminum in thermite outperforms nano-meter sized aluminum, but formulating thermite into a gel makes it easier to ignite. That is all. Class dismissed.
All I see is a lot of posturing in an attempt to divert attention from the acknowledged aluminum revealed in figures 25 and 26 of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Your "money quote", where you seem to think that the words "advanced by 68.1 deg C and 76.8 deg C" refer to the micro aluminum outperforming the nano aluminum actually refer to the fact that when the micro aluminum thermite is prepared as "normal thermite" or "simple" as it is put in table 1, and not prepared as a "nanocomposite" or a "sol-gel thermite", the IGNITION POINT is raised by about 68 and 77 degrees!

Figure 5 and Table 1 in Spanx´s paper actually confirm that the nano aluminum outperforms the macro aluminum in every way: it ignites at a lower temperature, has narrower DSC peaks with more power (best of 4.3W vs best of 2.96W), and more energy (best of 1648J vs best of 955.2J).
Miragememories 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 July 2014, 09:11 AM   #4678
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM I have given up on you, but I must acknowledge your correction of my misstatement re iron oxide flakes igniting at 430 C....

And now: I have given up on you because you think it's OK to say that Millette "likely" burned the chips at 430 C (secretly).

My hypothesis, that Basile may be low in his supply, is not an accusation of fraud, and it is based on some evidence.

Your accusation that Millette "likely" burned the chips at 430 C and then (I presume) never told anyone is completely devoid of evidence, blatantly contradicts his statement that his materials characterizations prove no thermite, and worst of all is an unfounded accusation of scientific fraud.

Since you cannot see the difference between my hypothesis and your accusation, and since you continue to think it's OK to throw out this accusation, I have given up on you entirely.
Originally Posted by Miragememories from AHH
"My hypothesis was that Dr. Millette "likely" performed an unreported 430C heat test to satisfy his own curiosity.

I did not state this as a fact because I obviously lack the necessary proof.

My hypothesis was not unreasonable and I gave a civil explanation for why I thought it probable that Dr. Millette did perform the test referred to."
I have made this point repeatedly but Chris, your response has remained hypocritical.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was."

Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released. Steven Jones then went on to do a THIRD test, as he wrote here: “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.”

So you see Beachnut, Jones/Harrit/Ryan/Farrer did the tests all right, they just didn't like the results and never published them! Gotta stay accurate about these things ya know...
Speaking of results that Dr. Millette never published.

Several months after Dr. Millette presented his Feb.29, 2012 report, you posted this;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...231314&page=23

posted June 16, 2012

Title: Millette Dust Study Update 6/15/12

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I had another phone conversation with Jim Millette today to get a progress report on his WTC Dust study. A few highlights:...

He has done more experiments and research on the iron-rich spheres. His updated report on the WTC Dust will be featured at a Microscopy Conference around July 10 (The McCrone Inter-Micro 2012 Conference, to be exact). There he will get another round of peer-review feedback on his work so far.

So far he has been unable to find a sample of known LaClede coating (and other possible suspected coatings that could be a match for his chips).

He considers coming up with a positive ID of the red-gray chips relatively unimportant, as he has already confirmed that there is definitely no measurable amount of thermitic materials in any of the chips.

However, he agrees it would be good if he DID find a match.

He is still working on a final report and it will have additional information that the preliminary report did not have, as you can see.
Oh and about that Microscopy Conference where Dr. Millette was going to present his latest test results;

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Jim Millette told me about his speech, and I got the impression it was very similar to the first one he gave months ago.

However, he has some new leads on samples of materials like burned-up thermitic stuff (but not LaClede! darn!).

He did say the report was well-received.

No new data or findings appear to have been in that speech however.
You were saying about testing and not publishing?
Miragememories 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 July 2014, 10:08 AM   #4679
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Here is a bit of "trolling" for MM to ignore.

If Nano/Micro thermite ignites at 660 oC which is the melting/ignition point of Al, How did Harrit & co get Al to ignite at 430oC ?

Quote:
Bentham paper. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.

Last edited by Spanx; 28th July 2014 at 10:14 AM.
Spanx 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 July 2014, 03:31 PM   #4680
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Here is a bit of "trolling" for MM to ignore.

If Nano/Micro thermite ignites at 660 oC which is the melting/ignition point of Al, How did Harrit & co get Al to ignite at 430oC ?
By using all the organic compounds in the primer paint silly........


(I believe a few organic compounds can be shown to ignite at around 430 C in air).
__________________
"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
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 03:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.