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 7th August 2013, 06:58 AM   #3321
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Ivan and Oystein know that the 2009 Bentham paper already analyzed the only other candidate primer paint, Tnemec, so they are betting everything on LaClede.

Dr. Millette's study says a big NO to LaClede.
Umm, that's artful, I guess -- to state the answer without clearly stating the question. After all, Millette didn't study Bentham chips (a) through (d).

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So.

If Dr. Millette was studying steel primer paint chips, as he and Ivan are arguing, they must be Tnemec which the 2009 Bentham paper has scientifically eliminated as a contender.
That assumes that Millette's chips are identical with chips (a) through (d). I thought you were rather eager to deny that.
MarkLindeman 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 7th August 2013, 08:29 AM   #3322
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"I only post these images to support the point that a trained eye can isolate 9/11 WTC dust red chips which are good candidates for ignition."

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
'You're making the Bentham paper look pretty awful. After all, it said this:

"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color...."

Did the Bentham authors intend to say that there were at least two kinds of red/gray chips, but they used their "trained eye" to isolate the ones that were "good candidates for ignition"?

Did they forget?

Did they not notice?
"
What is your problem?

I guess the Bentham paper could have said; "get a bag of 9/11 WTC dust and you'll find red chips like those highlighted in our paper----somewhere."

Filtering to isolate good samples is not an unusual event in research.

A magnet makes it possible to eliminate the need to analyze "the bulk of the dust."

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Both the 2009 Bentham paper and the 2012 Millette study provide color images of their highlighted 9/11 WTC dust red chip selections.

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"When you also consider that hundreds of 9/11 WTC dust chips tested by chemist Mark Basile support the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper, and that the chips selected by Dr. Millette do not support those findings, the obvious conclusion is that Dr. Millette selected chips which were similar but not the same."
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
'"I think the extent of Basile's experimental support for the Bentham paper was getting chips to ignite. That isn't much support at all."
Maybe you should do some homework before you publicly voice your unsupported thoughts.

Working independently on the 9/11 WTC dust for over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, chemical engineer Mark Basile talked of testing 100's of thermitic red/gray chips and is credited as being the original discoverer of the iron-rich post-ignition residue.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 7th August 2013 at 08:36 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 7th August 2013, 08:52 AM   #3323
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
But according to you the images labelled a, b, c, and d in the Bentham paper do not show chips of the same material, namely that chips a, b, c, and d are all the same material. Please clarify:

Are the red layers the same material for chips a-d?
Are the gray layers the same material for chips a-d?

Are chips a-d the same material?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 7th August 2013 at 08:54 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 7th August 2013, 11:12 AM   #3324
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What is your problem?
That's a silly question.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I guess the Bentham paper could have said; "get a bag of 9/11 WTC dust and you'll find red chips like those highlighted in our paper----somewhere."

Filtering to isolate good samples is not an unusual event in research.

A magnet makes it possible to eliminate the need to analyze "the bulk of the dust."

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".
Really, you are protesting far too much, and I suspect you know it. Not one reader in 100, reading that text without a prior commitment, would construe it to mean that the researchers used magnets to isolate at least two kinds of red chips, and then chose the ones that they thought were a more interesting red -- or whatever you feel compelled to assume that they did.

I'm fairly sure you are intelligent enough to realize that the issue isn't "filtering to isolate good samples," but -- on your account -- failure to document research methods.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Working independently on the 9/11 WTC dust for over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, chemical engineer Mark Basile talked of testing 100's of thermitic red/gray chips and is credited as being the original discoverer of the iron-rich post-ignition residue.
How credulous do you think I am?

Dropping the adjective "thermitic" into a sentence doesn't constitute any kind of evidence or argument. If you aren't interested in this topic, why post on it?
MarkLindeman 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 8th August 2013, 06:19 AM   #3325
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"Personally, I seldom debate in any discussion threads, since I know very well from the past that when I do so, I easily develop a kind of addiction on it. This is definitely the case of "nanothermite" forums here, ... which proved our hypothesis that Bentham chips (a) to (a) are indeed pieces of WTC epoxy paint ... but I will still check everyday... since it is simply my habit and I basically love this forum, as well as the most people discussing here."
I am still waiting for you to respond to post 3311 Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?

I know that Oystein is preoccupied with the subject of this other thread; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...22#post9314122, but you appear to be under no such constraint.

MM
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 8th August 2013, 08:15 AM   #3326
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I am still waiting for you to respond to post 3311 Ivan Kminek.

Do you and Oystein still insist that the red chips studied by Dr. Millette and those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper are LaClede primer paint?
By all means let's not discuss the purported evidence that any of these chips are "thermitic" or evince sabotage in any way.

If you have serious questions for Ivan and/or Oystein, it would be best to quote specific statements they have made in the past. Legitimate scientific discussion thrives on specificity; cargo cult science thrives on equivocation and handwaving.
MarkLindeman 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 8th August 2013, 11:00 AM   #3327
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."
Post hoc fallacy. Why did they choose that particular hue? If it wasn't the hue that led them to test those particular chips and find them 'thermitic' then what test did lead them to those chips specifically?

Meanwhile, note that different cameras and different lighting conditions can lead to different apparent hues. Millette applied the same selection criteria as the Bentham boys.
__________________
"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 8th August 2013, 02:49 PM   #3328
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Both the 2009 Bentham paper and the 2012 Millette study provide color images of their highlighted 9/11 WTC dust red chip selections.

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
" Why did they choose that particular hue?"
You mean the people who crafted the nanothermite?

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"If it wasn't the hue that led them to test those particular chips and find them 'thermitic' then what test did lead them to those chips specifically?"
I believe chemist Mark Basile would get that credit.

He was the discoverer of iron-rich micro-spheroids in the residue of the ignited red chips.

Claiming he has witnessed hundreds of these ignitions with the same thermitic result, he probably became the first expert at quickly identifying candidate chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"Meanwhile, note that different cameras and different lighting conditions can lead to different apparent hues.

Millette applied the same selection criteria as the Bentham boys.
"
You can practise denial all you want Glenn.

It is Millette's color images that fail to match.

He was able to preview red chip images from the Bentham paper and he still failed to match their distinctive color.

When he posted his study, he had to know his red chips did not color match those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Need I remind you;

Originally Posted by 2009 Bentham paper
"The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color...."
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"…BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't."
MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 8th August 2013 at 02:50 PM.
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 8th August 2013, 03:01 PM   #3329
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You mean the people who crafted the nanothermite?

I believe chemist Mark Basile would get that credit.

He was the discoverer of iron-rich micro-spheroids in the residue of the ignited red chips.

Claiming he has witnessed hundreds of these ignitions with the same thermitic result, he probably became the first expert at quickly identifying candidate chips in the 9/11 WTC dust.

You can practise denial all you want Glenn.

It is Millette's color images that fail to match.

He was able to preview red chip images from the Bentham paper and he still failed to match their distinctive color.

When he posted his study, he had to know his red chips did not color match those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Scary stuff You're saying that the Bentham Boys chose their chips according to the hue that Basile originally identified, and that Millette chose the wrong hue in his selection. This changes everything.

Was this method of identification mentioned in the Bentham 'paper'?
__________________
"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 8th August 2013, 04:05 PM   #3330
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post


The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".
Classic truther not understanding the context. When they say "distinctive," they were referring to the bits in relation to the rest of the dust, which I assume was made of neutral browns and greys. If you've got evidence that they found other red chips of a less distinct red colour please post it here, and prove me wrong.
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 8th August 2013, 04:27 PM   #3331
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"You're saying that Dr. Harrit et al chose their chips according to the hue that Basile originally identified, and that Millette chose the wrong hue in his selection?"
Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"Was this method of identification mentioned in the Bentham 'paper'?"
Originally Posted by 2009 Bentham paper
"2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust.

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples.

The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.

They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm.

Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray)."
I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 8th August 2013 at 04:41 PM.
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 8th August 2013, 05:08 PM   #3332
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.





I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM
None of that actually mentions other red chips. Were the mysterious other less distinct red chips magnetic as well?
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 9th August 2013, 12:25 AM   #3333
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.

I believe that Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination falls under "method of identification".

MM
Then what led them to discard the chips of the 'wrong' colour prior to further testing? Did Basile provide them with a colour chart? If so, was this mentioned in Bentham?
__________________
"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 9th August 2013, 02:47 AM   #3334
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Looks like MM has me on ignore. Now there's a surprise - when he knows that someone will trounce him through greater experience, knowledge and logic he just ignores them.

Funny how he will claim that chips a-d are the same thermite material because they have the same colour (which is ludicrous due to differences in equipment and environment), but steadfastly refuses to come clean and say that the rest of the data in the paper supports the conclusion that chips a-d are the same material even though that point is not contended. It's only MM who refuses to agree with his heroes.

What's the matter MM? The question too much of a pickle for you?
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 9th August 2013, 02:51 AM   #3335
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
None of that actually mentions other red chips. Were the mysterious other less distinct red chips magnetic as well?
He's just playing semantics because he hasn't got the bottle to admit that the Bentham paper is rubbish after backing it with all his heart. It's sad. Ignoring the data and concentrating on something which is plainly untrue to anyone with any reading comprehension is his way of desperately trying to keep this silly thread going. Just ignore him if he's playing silly buggers and ask him:

Are chips a-d the same material?

Just ask him that over and over and he'll refuse to answer it and go away because he knows that if he says yes it opens himself up to logic that will show him to be wrong with regards to whether Millette identified the same chips- as I explained in a previous post.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 9th August 2013 at 02:52 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 05:09 AM   #3336
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
He's just playing semantics because he hasn't got the bottle to admit that the Bentham paper is rubbish after backing it with all his heart. It's sad. Ignoring the data and concentrating on something which is plainly untrue to anyone with any reading comprehension is his way of desperately trying to keep this silly thread going. Just ignore him if he's playing silly buggers and ask him:

Are chips a-d the same material?

Just ask him that over and over and he'll refuse to answer it and go away because he knows that if he says yes it opens himself up to logic that will show him to be wrong with regards to whether Millette identified the same chips- as I explained in a previous post.
Quoted, for possibly wider visibility.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 9th August 2013, 05:37 AM   #3337
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al quite openly stated this distinctness in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Of course there are a lot of colored chips in the 9/11 WTC dust, but the scientists agreed that after magnetic extraction, the red candidate chips could be readily discerned by eye from the many other red chips e.g. steel primer paint.
First it was the resistivity test that you said was the test that helped determine what was paint and what was thermitic. Then you were shown that the paper said they tested ONE chip for resisitivity.

After you were shown your "resisitivity test" claim was crap, you move to the DSC test that you thought proved the chips were not paint. After being shown they only tested 3 of the 4 samples, proving that THAT test was not donw on all the samples, you now move to the "discerned by eye" garbage.

Pathetic.

My point in all this is that Harrit and his group contradict themselves and prove their own paper to be incorrect.

They assumed all the chips that were magnetically attracted AND having red/gray layers were thermitic. Not once did they make any statement in their paper that they found anything BUT thermitic chips. Then Jones (and others) opened his yapper (after the paper was published) and states that there were supposedly other types of red/gray, magnetically attracted chips.

The best part of all this is that according to you, Jones, and others, they had primer paint chips in their possession yet chose to go to other published findings to get their "paint chip" characteristics instead of directly testing those paint chips that they supposedly had in their hands!

Why didn't they test any of the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips they supposedly separated to see if THOSE reacted in the DSC test?

The bottom line is they assumed all the chips were thermitic. That's why they didn't run every single test on every single chip. They randomly did tests on random chips. That's why you keep changing your tune as to what test/s they actually did to prove they had the right chips.
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 9th August 2013, 06:33 AM   #3338
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"Then what led them to discard the chips of the 'wrong' colour prior to further testing? "
Over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, Mark Basile made the discovery that certain 9/11 WTC dust chips consistently ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue.

His initial research of selecting, cataloging, photographing, heat testing, residue examining, and referral back to catalog notes and photo images, became more focused when he discovered that some chips showed remarkable thermitic behaviour.

At some point it became clear that the chips which ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue, were "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.".

We know that chemist Mark Basile shared his findings with other scientists performing research on the 9/11 WTC dust.

They shared a common agreement about what they had observed and it became part of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
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 9th August 2013, 08:02 AM   #3339
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
We know that chemist Mark Basile shared his findings with other scientists performing research on the 9/11 WTC dust.

They shared a common agreement about what they had observed and it became part of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
And how do you know this? Or are you simply assuming? It isn't mentioned in Bentham.

Basile's own website - in which he proposes a protocol for an independent study - makes no mention of separation according to the specific hue of red, just magnetic separation then electron microscopy to ensure they're of the red/gray variety.

But here's a thing - my formal study of inorganic chemistry and physics ended in 1969 when I went to Uni to study biology. But, back then, if you'd asked me to devise an experiment to determine whether a sample might or might not contain thermite I (and every chemist on the planet, I'd guess) would have got straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat. I'd have proposed heating the sample to thermite's ignition point in an inert atmosphere.

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing *loudly* that Basile and the Bentham team avoided this? How on earth is overlooking that even possible from so-called chemists?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 9th August 2013 at 08:18 AM.
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 9th August 2013, 09:05 AM   #3340
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"But here's a thing - my formal study of chemistry and physics ended in 1969 when I went to Uni to study biology.

But, back then, if you'd asked me to devise an experiment to determine whether a sample might or might not contain thermite I (and every chemist on the planet, I'd guess) would have got straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat.

I'd have proposed heating the sample to thermite's ignition point in an inert atmosphere.

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing *loudly* that Basile and the Bentham team avoided this?

How on earth is overlooking that even possible from so-called chemists?
"
I asked Dr. Harrit when he was in Toronto why they did not perform the DSC (heat testing) in an inert atmosphere. His reply was that they wished to replicate Tillotson's nanothermite DSC test conditions.

Are you suggesting that the revelation of thermite can only be obtained by igniting it in an inert atmosphere?

What is there about a heat ignition in a normal atmosphere which negates the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper?

Does it not set your alarm bells ringing when Dr. Millette refuses to run his own heat test that you say goes "straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat."??

MM
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 9th August 2013, 09:13 AM   #3341
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Does it not set your alarm bells ringing when Dr. Millette refuses to run his own heat test that you say goes "straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat."??

MM
Why did Harrit not run "heat tests" on the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips they supposedly separated out from the red/gray, magnetically attracted thermitic chips?
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 9th August 2013, 09:21 AM   #3342
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
And how do you know this? Or are you simply assuming? It isn't mentioned in Bentham.
Right. The Bentham paper doesn't say anything about distinguishing among kinds of red/gray chips. On the contrary, it says that in 2007, Jones "observed distinctive bi-layered chips, with both a red and a gray layer," subsequently referred to as "the red/gray chips." There is no hint in the text that the "distinctive color" of the red/gray chips studied by Harrit et al. differs from the distinctive color of other red/gray chips, and that the researchers followed a protocol for distinguishing between (among?) these distinctive colors.

It's odd, in a way, that MM doesn't concede this point and retreat to more defensible ground.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Basile's own website - in which he proposes a protocol for an independent study - makes no mention of separation according to the specific hue of red, just magnetic separation then electron microscopy to ensure they're of the red/gray variety.
Actually, what I'm looking at on markbasile.org refers to optical microscopy -- but still no hints on how to separate red from red. It may actually be possible to distinguish various kinds of red/gray chips by optical inspection, although that in itself wouldn't save either the Bentham paper or the thermite hypothesis.
MarkLindeman 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 9th August 2013, 09:40 AM   #3343
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
It's odd, in a way, that MM doesn't concede this point and retreat to more defensible ground.
He knows enough to know that the only way to save the Bentham paper is by making up arbitrary rules for why Millette got the chips wrong. By admitting that both Harrit et al. and Millette followed the same rules, he would be admitting that they had the same chips, and he knows this and the logical conclusion this leads to - that the chips described in Harrit et al. really are not thermite at all. His only hope is to cling to the foregone conclusion that Millette must have gotten the wrong chips and tested paint instead of thermite.
thedopefishlives 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 9th August 2013, 09:51 AM   #3344
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Are you suggesting that the revelation of thermite can only be obtained by igniting it in an inert atmosphere?



MM
Epoxy paint shouldn't ignite in an inert atmosphere, thermite should. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you before.
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 9th August 2013, 09:58 AM   #3345
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
I asked Dr. Harrit when he was in Toronto why they did not perform the DSC (heat testing) in an inert atmosphere. His reply was that they wished to replicate Tillotson's nanothermite DSC test conditions.
This would be fine if they actually knew they had the same material. It's moronic if you are still in the discovery stage. Did he imply he already knew what the material was and only wanted to compare it?

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the revelation of thermite can only be obtained by igniting it in an inert atmosphere?
It's a way to confirm you have a thermite reaction and not just some organic burning in air. They do admit the chips contain some organic compounds. How did they eliminate their contribution to the DSC results?

Quote:
What is there about a heat ignition in a normal atmosphere which negates the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper?
News flash. Organic compounds burn in air.

Quote:
Does it not set your alarm bells ringing when Dr. Millette refuses to run his own heat test that you say goes "straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat."??

MM
Not really, He's actually competent.
__________________
"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 9th August 2013, 10:27 AM   #3346
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"News flash. Organic compounds burn in air."
Oh that life should be so simple.

Do Tnemec or LaClede steel primer paint leave a residue containing iron-rich micro-spheroids when "burned in air"?

MM
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 9th August 2013, 10:38 AM   #3347
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
Oh that life should be so simple.

Do Tnemec or LaClede steel primer paint leave a residue containing iron-rich micro-spheroids when "burned in air"?

MM
Which samples in the harrit paper did? Oh, that's right, they forgot to document that.

Another news flash. If you burn anything with iron (rust counts) you can get the same spheres.

Put a match to steel wool sometime (flick a Bic, for that matter).
__________________
"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 9th August 2013, 11:23 AM   #3348
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you suggesting that the revelation of thermite can only be obtained by igniting it in an inert atmosphere?
No. I said it was the first thing you do and is definitive. Basile and the Bentham team have studiously avoided that route. Can you suggest why? Tillotson doesn't set the agenda here, as it's B and B that are claiming thermite yet conspicuously failing to do the one very simple and cheap test that could settle the matter.
__________________
"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 9th August 2013, 11:31 AM   #3349
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Important New Article

Has anyone posted this yet? Much food for thought, direct responses to things said by Ivan, Oystein, Dave Thomas and me:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 9th August 2013 at 11:32 AM. Reason: spelling
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 9th August 2013, 11:59 AM   #3350
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Has anyone posted this yet? Much food for thought, direct responses to things said by Ivan, Oystein, Dave Thomas and me:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
I hate to tell you but, there is no "food for thought" in that post.

It's all the typical misapplication of chemistry.

The Harrit paper has failed. The funny part is, "debunkers" had nothing to do with it. The best way to "debunk" that paper is to read it. (It helps if you also trust their data).
__________________
"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; 9th August 2013 at 12:02 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 9th August 2013, 12:16 PM   #3351
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Where's the b...alumina?

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
But here's a thing - my formal study of inorganic chemistry and physics ended in 1969 when I went to Uni to study biology. But, back then, if you'd asked me to devise an experiment to determine whether a sample might or might not contain thermite I (and every chemist on the planet, I'd guess) would have got straight to the heart of the matter in 20 seconds flat. I'd have proposed heating the sample to thermite's ignition point in an inert atmosphere.
I respectfully disagree about the ignition temperature, given that different mixes and grain sizes can have different ignition temperatures. The method that Tillotson and Gash used can serve as a reference here in determining if a thermite reaction has occurred. They didn't heat the mix to (conventional) thermite's ignition point (they did use an inert atmosphere though). But what they did do in order to be sure that the reaction that happened was a thermite reaction was to look at the post-ignition residue. They found BOTH metallic iron and aluminium oxide, as evidenced by their PXRD analysis.

The Bentham team completely failed to reproduce that result: no aluminium oxide was found, and no pure iron, and the iron oxide particles that were there at the beginning were clearly still there after the reaction, as seen in the micrographs. Yet incomprehensibly they still claimed the material was thermite.

Millette's goal was to analyze chips with the same composition as chips a-d in the Bentham paper, as these were the only ones properly characterized throughout the paper out of all the possible chips you can run into given the separation method. He didn't need to do any heating tests as he found there was no free aluminium, and that ruled out thermite.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2013, 12:26 PM   #3352
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Let me give an example as to how this article is junk.

Originally Posted by article
The authors also know that the active red/gray chips are as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite, because they compare the exothermic DSC curves to the result in a paper on a sol-gel nano-thermite:
So "powerful" in-fact that it surpasses the theoretic limit of a thermite reaction. They knew this and explained it must have been because of some organic contaminants. Odd they didn't eliminate this variable by reacting the chips in an inert environment.

I suppose this sort of thing happens when you know what you have and don't really need to prove it.

ETA: I think the author of this article spends more lines playing up the qualifications of the "scientist" than anything else.

BTW, Donate more money so they can do the work they already said they did.
__________________
"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; 9th August 2013 at 12:40 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 9th August 2013, 02:08 PM   #3353
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I respectfully disagree about the ignition temperature, given that different mixes and grain sizes can have different ignition temperatures.
Sure, and I was "" this far from going back to edit that post and add "well beyond". It's not a real issue when designing an experiment. You don't go to the bordeline here, you take care to play safe.
__________________
"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 9th August 2013, 03:26 PM   #3354
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Important Faintly Alarming New Article
FIFY. This interminable, rambling, ax-grinding screed as good as shrieks, "Cranks!" Really they should pay you to restate their arguments as reasonably as possible. I suspect that if they asked nicely, you would do it pro bono, not that I think you should, nor that they will.

I guess I can try. The heart of the argument seems to be that Harrit et al. believe that heating their chips produced iron-rich microspheres, and that (plus the energy released) evinces some form of thermite. It doesn't seem to me that Harrit et al. provide much support for either part of that claim.

When I try to parse exactly why Harrit et al. think they've found some form of thermite, and what independent warrant they offer for those criteria, I don't find much. Of course a scientist with appropriate training might be able to set me straight, but I've seen no sign of that. Did Talboo and Zugam bury it in the entrails?

Absent that (never mind any intelligible hypothesis of how this substance might have been used to bring down the towers), I don't see much point in parsing T&Z's attempted smackdowns of divers JREFers. The goalposts are over there.
MarkLindeman 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 August 2013, 06:24 AM   #3355
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Has anyone posted this yet? Much food for thought, direct responses to things said by Ivan, Oystein, Dave Thomas and me:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
I dunno, I'm still confused about what I'm supposedly confused about. The value of this article is that it summarizes well the objections to the Millette dust study.

In the meantime tho, I have offered to Mark Basile and the entire 2009 dust study crew to try to broker some kind of way for there to be "buyin" in advance on both sides for a protocol for Basile's new study. I'm no scientist but I can help find people who are. For that matter, at this point I can help find more WTC dust. No response. Very frustrating.
__________________
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; 10th August 2013 at 06:25 AM. Reason: spelling
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 10th August 2013, 07:05 AM   #3356
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"I dunno, I'm still confused about what I'm supposedly confused about. The value of this article is that it summarizes well the objections to the Millette dust study.

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

In the meantime though, I have offered to Mark Basile and the entire 2009 dust study crew to try to broker some kind of way for there to be "buyin" in advance on both sides for a protocol for Basile's new study.

I'm no scientist but I can help find people who are.

For that matter, at this point I can help find more WTC dust.

No response.

Very frustrating.
"
Yes it is very frustrating---and so unnecessary.

Speaking of finding people, you found the lab guy aka Dr. Millette.

I know you consider Dr. Millette to be a nice person Chris, but for the $1,000 bucks we paid him (for part of a research presentation on 9/11 WTC dust he was mostly going to do anyway), don't you think he could spend a few seconds heating his no longer needed 9/11 WTC red chip selections?

Only then will he acknowledge that he tested the wrong chips and maybe go back and make proper selections.

If the only thing to be discovered is the truth, what is the problem?

MM
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 10th August 2013, 07:14 AM   #3357
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

If the only thing to be discovered is the truth, what is the problem?

MM
I agree.

Why do you think the Harrit team is holding back the evidence that could prove their case?

We don't need another study. Just release the data they said they already have. Why are you not fighting for this?
__________________
"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; 10th August 2013 at 07:16 AM.
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 August 2013, 07:56 AM   #3358
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, Mark Basile made the discovery that certain 9/11 WTC dust chips consistently ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue.

His initial research of selecting, cataloging, photographing, heat testing, residue examining, and referral back to catalog notes and photo images, became more focused when he discovered that some chips showed remarkable thermitic behaviour.

At some point it became clear that the chips which ignited at ~430C and produced iron-rich micro-spheroids in their residue, were "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color.".

We know that chemist Mark Basile shared his findings with other scientists performing research on the 9/11 WTC dust.

They shared a common agreement about what they had observed and it became part of the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img836/2848/822p.png


What is your problem?

I guess the Bentham paper could have said; "get a bag of 9/11 WTC dust and you'll find red chips like those highlighted in our paper----somewhere."

Filtering to isolate good samples is not an unusual event in research.

A magnet makes it possible to eliminate the need to analyze "the bulk of the dust."

The quote also notes a distinctive color for the red chips which is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color".

Both the 2009 Bentham paper and the 2012 Millette study provide color images of their highlighted 9/11 WTC dust red chip selections.

The difference between the reference Bentham images (4 individual photos with consistent color balance) and the Millette image, is "readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color."




Maybe you should do some homework before you publicly voice your unsupported thoughts.

Working independently on the 9/11 WTC dust for over a year before the 2009 Bentham paper was published, chemical engineer Mark Basile talked of testing 100's of thermitic red/gray chips and is credited as being the original discoverer of the iron-rich post-ignition residue.

MM
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Oh that life should be so simple.

Do Tnemec or LaClede steel primer paint leave a residue containing iron-rich micro-spheroids when "burned in air"?

MM
So iron-rich micro-spheroids are the signature product of thermite?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 08:02 AM   #3359
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Has anyone posted this yet? Much food for thought, direct responses to things said by Ivan, Oystein, Dave Thomas and me:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/

Plenty of witnesses, including first-responders, have testified that explosions were seen and heard. The rubble of the towers confirms their testimonies with the tell-tale signs of spent thermitic materials

Seems to be a direct foot shot since thermite doesn't explode.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th August 2013, 09:44 AM   #3360
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I dunno, I'm still confused about what I'm supposedly confused about. The value of this article is that it summarizes well the objections to the Millette dust study.
Chris, you're a classy guy.

The problem in a nutshell is that certain people can object to the Millette dust study until the End of Days without getting any closer to understanding the physical evidence, never mind proving the case for nanothermite.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Plenty of witnesses, including first-responders, have testified that explosions were seen and heard. The rubble of the towers confirms their testimonies with the tell-tale signs of spent thermitic materials

Seems to be a direct foot shot since thermite doesn't explode.
I think their case is that *thermite (super/nano) can be engineered to be explosive, and/or to trigger other explosives. So I'd score it a wild miss but not a direct foot shot. Either way, one would want to take the gun away.
MarkLindeman 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 03:30 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.