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 August 2013, 11:33 AM   #3361
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
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."??
Millette needn't do this test as his results unequivocally confirm the absence of thermite - kaolinite contains no elemental aluminum.
Africanus 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, 11:43 AM   #3362
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
Millette needn't do this test as his results unequivocally confirm the absence of thermite - kaolinite contains no elemental aluminum.
To use an analogy, which is dangerous considering how our Truthers have so much trouble with figurative speech, I would liken it to cooking a steak. The simple easy approach would be to just throw it on a grill until it's done. A proper chef, on the other hand, would take his time seasoning it, maybe marinading it, searing it off, and finishing it to perfection. Both steaks are cooked completely, but one did it in a much more thorough and decisive manner with far superior results.
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 10th August 2013, 11:47 AM   #3363
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
To use an analogy, which is dangerous considering how our Truthers have so much trouble with figurative speech, I would liken it to cooking a steak. The simple easy approach would be to just throw it on a grill until it's done. A proper chef, on the other hand, would take his time seasoning it, maybe marinading it, searing it off, and finishing it to perfection. Both steaks are cooked completely, but one did it in a much more thorough and decisive manner with far superior results.
Sorry, but I don't get the point?
Africanus 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, 12:46 PM   #3364
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
Sorry, but I don't get the point?
The simple solution would be to ignite it in an inert atmosphere. Rather than doing that, Dr. Millette did very in-depth research with proper tools that was just as effective at excluding the thermite hypothesis.
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 10th August 2013, 12:48 PM   #3365
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"Millette needn't do this test as his results unequivocally confirm the absence of thermite - kaolinite contains no elemental aluminum."
Millette needs to do the test as proof that his findings are based on chips with the same chemistry as those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

He does not have to perform this test if he can prove that the chips he tested, if heated to ~430C would ignite and produce iron-rich micro-spheroids in the resulting residue.

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, 12:55 PM   #3366
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
Millette needs to do the test........
MM

This is where you miss the boat.

He doesn't have to do anything because no one gives any notice to the "truther" study.

The Harrit study is self debunking to anyone that reads it. I bet you wonder why no one has noticed this study since it came out. I don't.

Here's a challange. Find a reference to their work outside of an internet blog. (there's one I know of but, it concerns lack of credibility in "open journals")
__________________
"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 12:59 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 10th August 2013, 01:32 PM   #3367
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Africanus
"Millette needn't do this test as his results unequivocally confirm the absence of thermite - kaolinite contains no elemental aluminum."


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette needs to do the test as proof that his findings are based on chips with the same chemistry as those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

He does not have to perform this test if he can prove that the chips he tested, if heated to ~430C would ignite and produce iron-rich micro-spheroids in the resulting residue.

MM
No, Jones & Co. need to do a DSC under an inert atmosphere if they wish to be taken seriously. Thermite, nano or otherwise, will show a large exotherm under an inert atmosphere. An inert atmosphere test is the first test that a forensic lab would do on a suspected sample of thermite*, akin to using litmus paper to find if a substance is acid.

Jones & Co. have had four years to do a simple test and yet they have not.

The inescapable conclusion is that they haven't done it because they know damn well that their mysterious, sinister substance is paint chips which won't react under an inert atmosphere. They are charlatans. You Truthers got punked by your own team. Let that be a life-lesson for you.

*unless the sample is so small as to preclude destructive testing methods like a DSC.
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 August 2013, 01:38 PM   #3368
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,133
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette needs to do the test as proof that his findings are based on chips with the same chemistry as those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
If he did and got different results you'd just claim he had "the wrong kind of red". You're doing post hoc reasoning, yet again.

eta: What Redwood said. So simple, so definitive, so avoided. I wonder why?

Do you have any idea why they all avoided this test, MM ?

(cue MM saying "You'll have to ask them")
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 10th August 2013 at 01:40 PM.
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 10th August 2013, 03:06 PM   #3369
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Just as a remainder, Ivan has warned that epoxy can degrade exothermically even under an inert atmosphere.

To rule out thermite, the thing to do is look for both metallic iron and aluminium oxide in the residue. If there's none of one of them, as in the Bentham paper case, then it's not thermite, as in the Bentham paper case.

ETA: And I'm aware that thermite can be made with metals other than aluminium, but the Bentham paper claims they found elemental aluminium as fuel.

Last edited by pgimeno; 10th August 2013 at 03:10 PM.
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 10th August 2013, 07:51 PM   #3370
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Just as a remainder, Ivan has warned that epoxy can degrade exothermically even under an inert atmosphere.
Any numbers on that? I'd be astonished if it were even close to the relatively puny output of thermite, much less the output of combustion of epoxy resin. (Yes, thermite is puny - you'll get more energy from simply burning aluminum in air.)


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
To rule out thermite, the thing to do is look for both metallic iron and aluminium oxide in the residue. If there's none of one of them, as in the Bentham paper case, then it's not thermite, as in the Bentham paper case.
Bingo. Thermite produces approximately twice as much aluminum oxide (alumina), by volume as it produces iron. Where is the alumina?

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
ETA: And I'm aware that thermite can be made with metals other than aluminium, but the Bentham paper claims they found elemental aluminium as fuel.
Magnesium has more Moxie (to use an old term) as a reducing agent than does aluminum, but it's inferior in actual use because its boiling point is less than aluminum, so some will be lost.

Harrit and Jones got aluminum and silicon in their EDX, looked at the SEMs which showed platelets characteristic of aluminum silicate, and concluded that it was nano-platelets of elemental aluminum with silicon or a silicone or some form of silica fitting in somehow, some way. I daresay that any of my old chemistry professors, upon seeing this from a student, would have suggested a change of major to something like English Lit.
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 11th August 2013, 06:00 AM   #3371
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,720
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
...
Harrit and Jones got aluminum and silicon in their EDX, looked at the SEMs which showed platelets characteristic of aluminum silicate, and concluded that it was nano-platelets of elemental aluminum with silicon or a silicone or some form of silica fitting in somehow, some way. I daresay that any of my old chemistry professors, upon seeing this from a student, would have suggested a change of major to something like English Lit.
Basket Weaving, not English Lit. An English Lit major would comprehend the written word, and be smarter than anyone in 911 truth, who can't read to see fraud, lies and fantasy. Second nature to English Lit.

The true believers of the church of thermite never question the energy difference, with no samples matching thermite in Jones study. Then they blast Millette who found no thermite for not heating the no thermite dust; has to be the dumbest logical mistake 911 truth makes, not reading the paper to understand the meaning of "no thermite". The true believers in thermite are always looking for iron spheres, but fail to realize the are products of fire. Failure to think inside and outside the box, stuck with repeating lies of 911 truth, they need iron spheres, too lazy to find them from other sources. Then they get desperate and make up studies to push the insanity of thermite; missing the terrorists brought planes as KE weapons, not sparklers to a terror attack. Poor 911 truth, 12 years late to reality, and dedicated to complete failure.

Last edited by beachnut; 11th August 2013 at 06:14 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 07:21 AM   #3372
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Basket Weaving, not English Lit. An English Lit major would comprehend the written word, and be smarter than anyone in 911 truth, who can't read to see fraud, lies and fantasy. Second nature to English Lit.

The true believers of the church of thermite never question the energy difference, with no samples matching thermite in Jones study. Then they blast Millette who found no thermite for not heating the no thermite dust; has to be the dumbest logical mistake 911 truth makes, not reading the paper to understand the meaning of "no thermite". The true believers in thermite are always looking for iron spheres, but fail to realize the are products of fire. Failure to think inside and outside the box, stuck with repeating lies of 911 truth, they need iron spheres, too lazy to find them from other sources. Then they get desperate and make up studies to push the insanity of thermite; missing the terrorists brought planes as KE weapons, not sparklers to a terror attack. Poor 911 truth, 12 years late to reality, and dedicated to complete failure.
Thanks Beachnut for defending English majors like me!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 09:04 AM   #3373
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Any numbers on that? I'd be astonished if it were even close to the relatively puny output of thermite, much less the output of combustion of epoxy resin. (Yes, thermite is puny - you'll get more energy from simply burning aluminum in air.)
I don't remember, and I feel lazy to search right now

If Ivan doesn't post shortly, I'll look for his former post on the subject.
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 11th August 2013, 11:06 AM   #3374
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Basket Weaving, not English Lit. An English Lit major would comprehend the written word, and be smarter than anyone in 911 truth, who can't read to see fraud, lies and fantasy. Second nature to English Lit.

The true believers of the church of thermite never question the energy difference, with no samples matching thermite in Jones study. Then they blast Millette who found no thermite for not heating the no thermite dust; has to be the dumbest logical mistake 911 truth makes, not reading the paper to understand the meaning of "no thermite". The true believers in thermite are always looking for iron spheres, but fail to realize the are products of fire. Failure to think inside and outside the box, stuck with repeating lies of 911 truth, they need iron spheres, too lazy to find them from other sources. Then they get desperate and make up studies to push the insanity of thermite; missing the terrorists brought planes as KE weapons, not sparklers to a terror attack. Poor 911 truth, 12 years late to reality, and dedicated to complete failure.
"they blast Millette who found no thermite for not heating the no thermite dust" is a perfect description of the issue.
__________________
"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 11th August 2013, 01:40 PM   #3375
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Just as a remainder, Ivan has warned that epoxy can degrade exothermically even under an inert atmosphere.
Any numbers on that? I'd be astonished if it were even close to the relatively puny output of thermite, much less the output of combustion of epoxy resin.
Here's the post. I haven't read the linked paper (book?). ETA: Also, I can't see the images now, don't know why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89#post9094789

I'll repeat the most important part of his post again:

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
This is why I warned that time: we should be very careful here, since even DTA or DSC measurements on WTC paint under inert can provide exotherms, which can be again attributed to thermitic reaction by truthers!
(Edited to add emphasis)

Last edited by pgimeno; 11th August 2013 at 01:44 PM.
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 11th August 2013, 02:26 PM   #3376
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

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 11th August 2013, 02:45 PM   #3377
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

MM
And thermite is the only source of iron-rich stuffoids?

Somehow I doubt that very much.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 04:27 PM   #3378
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

MM
How many layers were on those chips? I seem to remember a grey layer...
__________________
"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 11th August 2013, 05:07 PM   #3379
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids.

MM
But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will. The evidence is in the Harrit et al paper. You seem to forget that the chips heated in the DSC test were more than one material. Why do you ignore the gray layer which is oxidised steel?

The gray layer is the source of microspheres as has been shown to you.

The chips consist of 3 very different materials or is that something else you are going to deny even though everyone else is within agreement on this fact, just as everyone else, except yourself is in agreement that chips a-d consist of the same material, namely an identical red and gray layer.
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 11th August 2013, 05:17 PM   #3380
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will.
That should be pretty easy to confirm. Would like to see that.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 07:02 PM   #3381
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Here's the post. I haven't read the linked paper (book?). ETA: Also, I can't see the images now, don't know why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89#post9094789
I can't get the images either.
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 11th August 2013, 09:05 PM   #3382
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/
Sunstealer you're mentioned extensively in this article. I'd be interested in any comments you may have about their comments on your assertions.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 03:20 AM   #3383
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Sunstealer you're mentioned extensively in this article. I'd be interested in any comments you may have about their comments on your assertions.
It's rubbish - the entire page. Poorly formatted and the "Time To First Lie" is in the first sentence. They claim the paper was peer reviewed but we know no peer reviewed the paper.


They write nonsense like
Quote:
One of the referees has stated in public that the paper is essentially flawless.
which couldn't be further from the truth as has been shown. There are dozens of flaws in methodology, interpretation of data and conclusions.

The rest of it is just the same old regurgitated truther garbage that has already been discussed endlessly and debunked multiple times in this and other thermite threads. That includes all the points where they quote me. There's no point in playing truther whack-a-mole, it's tedious and time consuming especially when the responses are not understood.

A good example is their large and pointless discussion of MEK soaking. Soaking the chip(s) in MEK is pointless and a flawed methodology. It tell you nothing of any importance whatsoever. The fact they carried out this test tells you that they didn't know what they were doing. Next time anyone asks about MEK soaking ask them whether that method identifies exactly what the organic matrix (epoxy) is. Ask them where in the paper the organic matrix is identified and characterised.

Instead of soaking in MEK or feeding the paint chips to cattle or maybe firing high powered lasers at them from the backs of frickin' sharks, why not use a method such as FTIR which will tell you exactly what the material is? Oh hang on they did do that, but instead of putting proper data into the paper, data that can be read and understood easily, just as you are reading this, they chose to leave it out. They left it out because FTIR does not lie, is not ambiguous, it can be read and it provides positive identification (qualitative analysis). You can't argue over which bond absorbs at a certain wavelength. What's more, with modern FTIR, which has libraries of thousands of materials, the machine will actually identify the material for you. You can't get better than that.

So instead of concentrating on getting the FTIR data published, which will lead to positive identification, they instead try to refute the debunking.

Millette is correct. His methods are the right ones to use for the task of material characterisation and his data, from multiple methods, provide positive identification of the material and therefore support his conclusion. The same conclusion can be determined from simply reading the Harrit et al paper itself!

When you consider they are smearing Millette rather than analysing the data he produced (no truther has analysed Millette's data)

Quote:
Unfortunately, none of Mohr´s claims about the new study and it´s author stand up to scrutiny: The EPA commissioned the official WTC dust studies that ignored the NFPA 921 protocol to look for exotic accelerants, and white-washed the toxic nature of the dust. Kevin Ryan points out that Millette participated in several of those reports, including the official dust characterization paper that ignores the "prominent and unusual" molten spheres. Dr. Millette is therefore not exactly independent and impartial, but Ryan notes that Millette still accepts the role of an independent scientist and only charges Mohr for a fraction of the cost. According to Ryan, a veteran EPA whistle-blower has charged Millette and his colleagues in two Rutgers studies with fraud, because they neutralized the pH levels of their WTC dust samples before testing. In Ryan´s reference(#7), Cate Jenkins also warns (on page 16) that other EPA funded WTC dust-studies "may be erroneous or falsified, due to the probable use of the same fraudulent pre-neutralization analytical techniques employed[by Millette et al] in the EPA-funded Rutgers team studies
then you know what their agenda is.

It's truther propaganda preaching to the crowd with the aim of raising cash for Basile . In 8 months they've raise just under $2000, so at a rate of $250 per month it will take them 20 months to raise the money! Truthers obviously don't have much faith or have lost interest so I doubt this flawed additional testing will ever go ahead.

It's beneath me to bother to comment further tbh.
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 12th August 2013, 03:43 AM   #3384
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Sunstealer I just want to go on record that you Beachnut and FEMR have taught me a lot about engineeering, metallurgy, physics and the science behind it all in the various threads about 9/11 you have all contributed to. Thank you.

Last edited by Dcdrac; 12th August 2013 at 03:44 AM.
Dcdrac 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 12th August 2013, 06:01 AM   #3385
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Thanks for taking as much time to reply as you did Sunstealer. You have alreay taught me much of what you explained in your post, especially about the value of FTIR. This article about Millette, you, me et al actually divides its time between going after all of us and talking up the alleged central importance of DSC and exothermic reactions etc. in determining whether the red-grey chips are thermitic.Interesting how Millette, you, Ivan, Oystein, and many others assert that the most important way to analyze materials is through the very tests they have left unpublished!
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 06:27 AM   #3386
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"It is the aftermath of combustion which is attention grabbing.

WTC paint is not going to produce iron-rich microspheroids."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"But "WTC paint" adhered to oxidised steel will."
If a source of iron is heated to its melting point, than the formation of iron-rich microspheroids is made possible.

Epoxy-based primer paint has not been shown to be capable of creating such a temperature.

You can repeatedly yammer on all you like, but your armchair analysis does not hold water against the real research that has been done.

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 12th August 2013, 06:45 AM   #3387
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Epoxy-based primer paint has not been shown to be capable of creating such a temperature.
Why didn't Harrit and his group heat test the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips that they separated out from the red/gray, magnetically attracted "thermitic" chips to see how THEY would react and what THEY would produce?

Why did Harrit and his group need to get paint samples to test from an OUTSIDE source instead of testing the ones they supposedly separated out?

Why didn't Harrit and his group analyze and publish the composition of the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips they separated out and compare it to the "thermitic" chips to see how the two differed from each other?
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 12th August 2013, 06:47 AM   #3388
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
That should be pretty easy to confirm. Would like to see that.
Why didn't Harrit do this? According to Jones, MM, and others, they HAD paints 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 12th August 2013, 06:54 AM   #3389
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
Sunstealer I just want to go on record that you Beachnut and FEMR have taught me a lot about engineeering, metallurgy, physics and the science behind it all in the various threads about 9/11 you have all contributed to. Thank you.


Yes, Sunstealer and Beachnut.... the power duo.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 06:58 AM   #3390
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Why didn't Harrit do this? According to Jones, MM, and others, they HAD paints chips.
They did.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 07:02 AM   #3391
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They did.
They did?

Can you please site in their paper where they did this with the red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips that they separated out from the similar "thermtic" 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 12th August 2013, 05:36 PM   #3392
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 06:02 PM   #3393
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
"A Tnemec chip". Brilliant. That tells us absolutely nothing. Just as a friendly suggestion, why don't you try looking it up before you post it so that you can give us the evidence at the same time, rather than having to endure our endless calls for "proof" or "citations" in the meantime?
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 12th August 2013, 08:04 PM   #3394
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not sure if it's in the paper. Someone ignited a Tnemec chip. May have been H & J, may been been Farrer or Basile. Will look later.


And the word is 'cite'.
Harrit did no such test in his paper. You are wrong.

And the proper sentence is "may HAVE been Farrer..."
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 12th August 2013, 10:31 PM   #3395
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I guess it was Basile. I thought I saw something from Jones about it, but maybe he was just referencing Basile's tests.

Anyway, I never said that it was part of the paper.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 10:32 PM   #3396
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
And this bears repeating. From the ATM paper:

Originally Posted by Harrit, Jones et al.
To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2013, 10:44 PM   #3397
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I had forgotten why Harrit and Jones saw no need to ignite-test the WTC primer paint:

Quote:
Notice, that the primer paint, being basically a ceramic material, is chemically stable at temperatures up to 800 C.
Duh. Lol.

Quote:
COMPARISON WITH THERMAL STABILITY OF RED/GRAY CHIPS

In contrast to the primer paint, the red/gray chips react violently, igniting in the neighbourhood of 430 C. The reaction must produce temperatures no less than ca. 1500 C, since the residues from molten iron are clearly seen in the optical microscope...
Why the Red-Grey Chips are not Primer Paint
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 12th August 2013 at 10:47 PM.
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 13th August 2013, 12:41 AM   #3398
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
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/
Hi, Chris, yes, I mentioned this elaborate article in the past and I also noted that its detailed critics would be very, very long and it does not make any sense to write it. Ziggy and Talboo would anyway ignore any objections.
One example: on Adam Taylor's blog, I tried to explain that I had never claimed that Millette's epoxy reference sample was not aromatic, and still: this nonsense/lie is a part of this article, which is wrong/misleading in almost everything.


Pgimeno:
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Here's the post. I haven't read the linked paper (book?). ETA: Also, I can't see the images now, don't know why.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89#post9094789

I'll repeat the most important part of his post again:

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
This is why I warned that time: we should be very careful here, since even DTA or DSC measurements on WTC paint under inert can provide exotherms, which can be again attributed to thermitic reaction by truthers!

(Edited to add emphasis)
Yes, but I based this "warning" on just this one paper (although a good one). I am still not sure what would be the thermic effect of heating e.g. epoxy Laclede paint under inert.

Sunstealer:
Although I understand your strict attitudes, I do not agree that soaking of chips in e.g. MEK solvent is meaningless. This is also why even Millette replicated these "tests". They can show e.g. whether the binder is linear (soluble) or crosslinked (insoluble) polymer. But, when the polymer is identified as epoxy resin using FTIR, it can be only the crosslinked one (it means that it can not be dissolved and can be at most swollen/softened by any solvent, depending on the actual degree of crosslinking).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 13th August 2013 at 01:25 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2013, 03:28 AM   #3399
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Sunstealer:
Although I understand your strict attitudes, I do not agree that soaking of chips in e.g. MEK solvent is meaningless. This is also why even Millette replicated these "tests". They can show e.g. whether the binder is linear (soluble) or crosslinked (insoluble) polymer. But, when the polymer is identified as epoxy resin using FTIR, it can be only the crosslinked one (it means that it can not be dissolved and can be at most swollen/softened by any solvent, depending on the actual degree of crosslinking).
One of the reasons for my strictness* is to try to get laymen, especially truthers, to understand that there are certain methods and procedures that give definitive answers to the question, "what is this material?"

You and I know that there is information to be gained from carrying out any scientific test, but only if it's done properly and only if the limitations of the method are known.

I have a number of problems with the MEK test:

The first is that it can only tell you so much as you've pointed out. The second is that there are other methods available that give positive identification of the organic binder, which means this is a superior method. There is no point wasting time or energy on a limited method when you have at your disposal a method that provides the exact answer unless it's used as very quick supplementary test.

Thirdly we have no idea which materials were soaked apart from one chip identified through SEM EDX ,which laughably isn't the same material as other chips shown in the paper.

Lastly, because the test has limitations and cannot identify which polymer is present, then it gives truthers leeway to discuss things which they have no experience or knowledge of. They keep the discussion going round in circles by talking about swelling and the behaviour of various unidentified paints soaked in MEK, all of which is of no substance when looking to identify the material.

In the critique linked by Chris they go through the usual non-argument of MEK chip contamination, desperately trying to explain away the irrefutable difference between EDX spectra of the red layer in chips a-d and the red layer in the MEK soaked chip. All the while ignoring the highlighted part of the statement that accompanies Fig 14:

Quote:
Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.
Truthers, including the authors of the paper, have no answers for the presence of Zn and Cr.
  • Why is Zn and Cr present?
  • What is the purpose of Zn and Cr in thermite?
  • Is Zn and Cr contamination? If so, show how.
  • Why are Zn and Cr only present in some chips but not others?
  • Why, if military grade super-nanothermite can only be produced in laboratories, is the process control so poor?

On the other hand, us debunkers with technical knowledge and experience, know that zinc chromate is used in paints and coatings as a corrosion inhibitor. The fact that both these elements are present along with other well established pigment particles strengthens the case for paint.

The fact that both these elements are present in some chips, but not others, shows that there are more than one type of red layer. If that is the case then there is more than one material, which supports several conclusions:

1. The MEK soaked chip is a different material to chips a-d because chips a-d show no presence of Zn accompanying Cr, instead Sr and Cr are present indicating a different corrosion inhibitor was used. (Note that Fig 7 EDX spectra are not detailed enough to identify the presence of Sr or Cr, that information was obtained elsewhere.)

Therefore there is no consistency across the chips tested and therefore the conclusion that all chips are the same material is wrong. This also means that any singular, specific material conclusion, thermite or otherwise, is wrong.

2. The authors of the paper either didn't know what they were doing, are purposely deceiving and therefore fraudulent or both. Why did they decide to drop the FTIR data and analysis from the paper, which is a far superior method?

Why didn't they just perform the simple MEK test and conclude that the binder was crosslinked due to insolubility rather than use the valuable space, in an already over-long paper, to wax lyrical about a moot test?

Instead us debunkers have the wherewithal to realise that more than one red paint is going to be present in dust gathered from the WTC event. A fact that even today truthers can't understand (see ergo's post 2 above this one). The fact that we see evidence for the presence of two different corrosion inhibitors in two different chips strongly suggests the presence of two different paints. We struggled with trying to identify another known paint other than Tnemec Red that was used on the WTC until Ivan Kminek pointed out Laclade red joist primer paint. This is a very strong candidate for chips a-d.

Truthers simply chose to ignore the direction in which all the evidence is pointing. They also chose to ignore the promises made in the paper they champion.

Quote:
The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed[29].
Where are the results of the FTIR analysis? Why after 4 1/2 years has this information never been presented? How difficult is it to post it on a truther website? Is it because it doesn't support the thermite conclusion and in fact shows the Harrit et al paper up for what it is? What have they got to hide?

But hey, lets ignore the important points and instead talk about "paint" and swelling whilst writing rubbish like this that has already been shown to be false:

Quote:
And the team discovered that MEK paint-solvent induces swelling in their chips that segregates the silicon from the aluminum, which proves that they are not chemically bound together, so the plates in their chips are not kaolin


* Other reasons for strict tone include: professionalism, exasperation and grumpy old man syndrome.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 13th August 2013 at 03:35 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 13th August 2013, 05:32 AM   #3400
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I guess it was Basile. I thought I saw something from Jones about it, but maybe he was just referencing Basile's tests.

Anyway, I never said that it was part of the paper.
You said they tested red/gray paint chips that were magnetically attracted. Can you show us where they did that?
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
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 03:10 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.