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 18th August 2013, 02:40 PM   #3481
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ivan I think this would be great! Really wish you would do it in the next few weeks. I am preparing a public report on where we are at this point with thbe e whole thermitic dust discussion and this would be most worthwhile. Would a chance for fame, glory and honor (by having this experiment mentioned in my report ).
Where "we are at" is that the tail is wagging the dog.

The 'Truth' side has failed to provide any worthwhile scientific evidence in support of the beliefs they held even prior to their experiments, they have left the water so muddied that even they can't explain their experiments and it falls to the rational to sort out the mess they have created?

Well, d'uh. What will happen is that Ivan (say) will find similar exotherms with iron-rich microspheres etc but no thermite. The 'Truth' will claim the wrong chips already contaminated with something, procedures that don't precisely match Basile + Bentham or that those microspheres are themselves proof of thermite and that, therefore, Ivan has proved that those were thermitic chips.

Those people are arguing from the pov of faith, not science. Their pov is not falsifiable.

A thought - I know we have precious few Truthers in this thread but let's ask them anyway - "What evidence would convince you that the Basile + Bentham chips were not thermitic?"

I seriously doubt you'll get a straight answer but you never know.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2013, 04:28 PM   #3482
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"The 'Truth' side has failed to provide any worthwhile scientific evidence in support of the beliefs they held even prior to their experiments, they have left the water so muddied that even they can't explain their experiments and it falls to the rational to sort out the mess they have created?"
The truth does not muddy the water.

Lies and disinformation do.

The 2009 Bentham paper followed the rules of science in order to make a determination of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.

The mud being tossed to undermine the investigation largely comes from individuals who have never seen a spec of 9/11 WTC dust.

Their focus on paint chip evidence, while ignoring scientific proof of thermitic material, reveals the shallowness of their sincerity.

They cannot live with the 2009 Bentham paper's scientific proof, so they practise denial.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
"Well, d'uh. What will happen is that Ivan (say) will find similar exotherms with iron-rich microspheres etc but no thermite.

The 'Truth' will claim the wrong chips already contaminated with something, procedures that don't precisely match Basile + Bentham or that those microspheres are themselves proof of thermite and that, therefore, Ivan has proved that those were thermitic chips.

Those people are arguing from the pov of faith, not science. Their pov is not falsifiable.

A thought - I know we have precious few Truthers in this thread but let's ask them anyway - "What evidence would convince you that the Basile + Bentham chips were not thermitic?"

I seriously doubt you'll get a straight answer but you never know.
"
The truth, in the case of Dr. Millette's 2012 WTC dust study cannot be muddied as long as their are legitimate samples of 9/11 WTC dust in storage.

There is no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C.

If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids in its residue, of course I would be greatly interested, and so would anyone else with a sincere interest in learning the truth about 9/11.

Of course the trick is explaining why "similar exotherms" and residue "with iron-rich microspheres etc mean no thermite" ?

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 18th August 2013, 04:47 PM   #3483
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Ivan I think this would be great! Really wish you would do it in the next few weeks. I am preparing a public report on where we are at this point with thbe e whole thermitic dust discussion and this would be most worthwhile. Would a chance for fame, glory and honor (by having this experiment mentioned in my report).
Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )
__________________
“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 18th August 2013, 04:50 PM   #3484
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
... If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids... MM
It is called paper with iron rich ink... lol, 911 truth, failure based on fantasy. 12 years of woo continue in the minds of a few fooled by Jones...
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 18th August 2013, 05:19 PM   #3485
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There is no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C.
What is it? Is it a replication of Tillotson and Gash results, by any chance? Is there aluminium oxide in the residue according to the PXRD analysis?

Oh wait, there's no PXRD analysis. And no aluminium oxide, therefore no thermite.

So, there's no denying the proof obtained from the heat test at ~430C was NOT a thermite reaction. Nothing to see here...
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 18th August 2013, 06:48 PM   #3486
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )
It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study. I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side. Kind of an Amish thing, you know.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2013, 07:44 PM   #3487
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
A couple other questions. I have ben unable to find the Niels Harrit quote where he basically says (in 2011 I believe), '2 years with no response is support for our study from the larger scientific community.'

My other question: Cate Jenkins, the EPA whistleblower who praised Millette personally but condemned some of the EPA studies Millette participated in, got her job back. But was any action taken against anyone in the EPA based on her accusations? She won her job but did she win her case?

I'm going through the ANETA.ORG article, as you may guess.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2013, 11:45 PM   #3488
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The 2009 Bentham paper followed the rules of science in order to make a determination of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.
But their experiments cannot be replicated, which make them the worst kind of science. Millette followed their chip selection process and yet you say he has the wrong chips, and no information is forthcoming as to how to select the 'right' chips. Basile + Bentham have created an unfalsifiable position.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Of course the trick is explaining why "similar exotherms" and residue "with iron-rich microspheres etc mean no thermite" ?
It wouldn't, which suggests to me you have no clue or cannot read. Other evidence showing no thermite would indicate that iron-rich microspheres are not a diagnostic test for thermite and that the Truth interpretation of their significance is wrong. Right now all of you Thermitians are assuming they are proof of thermite, which is bad science.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 12:01 AM   #3489
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Rather than go to all that trouble, why not just ignite the chips you have?

If the bedunker assertion is that any ol' paint on rusted steel will produce that exotherm and microspheres, should be pretty easy to confirm with what you have.

If it doesn't work with what you have, then we know that any ol' paint on rusted steel will not produce the results that were identified in the Bentham paper, and replication is going to be necessary.

I don't think your experimental design is all that good. Being able to control the composition of the substance you're testing is not rigorous methodology. You would never allow such an experiment from the truther side. Much better to simply work with the known. Which means test commonplace steel paint on iron oxide, or test WTC paint specifically and support Mark Basile's experiment.
No, it is not my assertion that any paint on rusted steel will produce (iron rich) microspheres. I have no idea. I am only absolutely sure that any kind of common paint based on organic polymer binder will produce some exotherms (in the similar temperature range like in Bentham paper) So keep this in mind, if you can.

As for "known" and "unknown" paints, the situation is quite opposite, I think: all "my" paint chips scrapped in the yard are unknown, I have no idea about their composition, binder, pigments, etc., whereas I know pretty well what was the composition of Laclede red primer (which probably prevailed in the WTC dust, therefore can be easily the red material of red/gray chips heated in DCS device). And I am indeed able to prepare again its close imitation, now in the form of red/gray chips on rust scales.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 19th August 2013 at 12:15 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 19th August 2013, 12:06 AM   #3490
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chris: I personally think that you should not comment anymore all this "Cate Jenkins stuff". By all his silly and irrelevant accusation of Jim Millette (and you), Kevin Ryan definitely proved himself to be just a desperate paranoid idiot who does not deserve any more attention from any mentally sane person.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 19th August 2013 at 12:28 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 19th August 2013, 02:49 AM   #3491
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Ergo: Anyway, I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red colour, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:



I would say that the average size of these chips is well below one millimeter.

I will perhaps visit our microscopy department quite soon...

My conclusion so far: there is a lot of pretty rusty things in our institute yard and they should definitely get a new paint job soon

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 19th August 2013 at 03:28 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 19th August 2013, 03:05 AM   #3492
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Btw, I put the chips which were not attracted with the magnet (probably mostly paint chips without attached rust) to another beaker and I added some MEK solvent (ca 20 ml).

Here is a photo after ca 1 h of standing:



As you can see, chips are still there, but MEK is already slightly orange, because of extracted/dispersed very fine red pigments (lead or iron or both, I do not know).

My interpretation is: at least some of the chips have a linear polymer binder like some acrylics, therefore this binder is at least partially soluble in MEK (even after several/many years after painting), allowing the release of the red pigment(s) into MEK.

For comparison, here is again the photo of my chips of Laclede paint imitation with epoxy resin binder, after several months of standing in MEK:



As you can see, MEK is still colorless, it means no iron oxide was released into MEK, since epoxy binder is not dissolved at all and is only slightly swollen.

All this makes full sense for any polymer chemist, indeed

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 19th August 2013 at 04:36 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 19th August 2013, 04:03 AM   #3493
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Ergo: Anyway, I just visited once again our yard and this time, I scrapped off using lancet only red paints from the rusted steel, from four independent sources, more specifically from some fence, some gate and two kinds of trolleys. Namely in the case of these trolleys, I would expect that the paint is a high quality primer, so perhaps with epoxy or alkyd binder. As for the red colour, it can be caused by iron oxides, but can be also caused by lead stuffs.

Here is a photo of the chips, which were attracted with the magnet (about half of them). Then, I transferred them from the magnet to the beaker:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=8118

I would say that the average size of these chips is well below one millimeter.

I will perhaps visit our microscopy department quite soon...

My conclusion so far: there is a lot of pretty rusty things in our institute yard and they should definitely get a new paint job soon
The red chip on the right looks like thermite

No, not that one. The other one.
Porkpie Hat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 06:54 AM   #3494
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Porkpie Hat View Post
The red chip on the right looks like thermite

No, not that one. The other one.
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 19th August 2013, 06:59 AM   #3495
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Chris, why would this be great? Preparing a "simulated WTC paint" when you have all kinds of primer paint on rusted steel immediately available to you to test? Do you doubt that any ol' primer paint on rusted steel would produce a similar exotherm and iron microspheres? If so, why? What's special about the WTC paint?

And why not just support Mark Basile's study, which is going to test the real thing? How much easier can we make it for you guys?

(Not to mention what Ivan could possibly mean by "different kinds of rust" having a "different" effect. )
A couple of quesitons.

1. According to the the Bentham paper, what criteria would one need to use to get the correct chips for testing.

2. Why didn't Harrit and his group test any of the paint chips they supposedly found in the dust piles? Why did they feel the need to test OTHER external paint 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 19th August 2013, 12:23 PM   #3496
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Glenn your question to the 9/11 Truith folks is a good one: what would convince you that the chips are NOT thermitic? Because I can answer in the other direction: that Millette's tests would have convinced me that the chips ARE thermitic if Millette's tests had come out positive.
__________________
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 19th August 2013, 12:39 PM   #3497
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
A couple of quesitons.

1. According to the the Bentham paper, what criteria would one need to use to get the correct chips for testing.

2. Why didn't Harrit and his group test any of the paint chips they supposedly found in the dust piles? Why did they feel the need to test OTHER external paint chips?
Excellent questions. I doubt you'll get an answer, because they raise one more and they won't like any of the options.

There are only two possibilities as I see it:

a) The chip selection criteria include a protocol not mentioned in the paper's isolation section, like looking for a specific shade of red they don't specify, as Miragememories advocates. As GlennB noted, that would make the paper unreproducible and therefore bad science.

b) The chip selection criteria are as specified in the isolation section of the paper and don't include separation of chips considered thermitic from those which are not, but instead consider all chips thermitic without distinguishing them. Given that there's no effort of characterizing each kind of chip on which an analysis is performed because all are considered the same thing, that makes the paper bad science.

Which is it?
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 19th August 2013, 12:41 PM   #3498
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
By the way, these possibilities also relate to Chris Mohr's question:

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
A couple other questions. I have ben unable to find the Niels Harrit quote where he basically says (in 2011 I believe), '2 years with no response is support for our study from the larger scientific community.'
Support from the larger scientific community comes from citations, and there are none of the Bentham paper in any other mainstream papers. Bad science usually doesn't get cited, except maybe in meta-papers. The paper has gone largely unknown; the journal where it appeared has a very bad reputation among the larger scientific community, see this post by Lenbrazil: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=538 and that of course means the opposite to what you say Harrit claimed.
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 19th August 2013, 12:54 PM   #3499
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Excellent questions. I doubt you'll get an answer, because they raise one more and they won't like any of the options.

There are only two possibilities as I see it:

a) The chip selection criteria include a protocol not mentioned in the paper's isolation section, like looking for a specific shade of red they don't specify, as Miragememories advocates. As GlennB noted, that would make the paper unreproducible and therefore bad science.
What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.
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 19th August 2013, 12:58 PM   #3500
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.

So can we expect smell next ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 01:10 PM   #3501
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
b) The chip selection criteria are as specified in the isolation section of the paper and don't include separation of chips considered thermitic from those which are not, but instead consider all chips thermitic without distinguishing them. Given that there's no effort of characterizing each kind of chip on which an analysis is performed because all are considered the same thing, that makes the paper bad science.
Exactly.
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 19th August 2013, 02:32 PM   #3502
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What I find funny is that MM first said that the resisitivity test was done to make sure that none of the chips were paint. When it was pointed out to him that in the Bentham paper they only tested one chip for resisitivity, he moved onto the definitive test being the DSC. When it was pointed out to him the the DSC was not done on all the samples, he now says it had something to do with the specific color.
He said that, and then he stopped answering questions entirely, and then he returned to complain about "mud." I think that brings us up to the moment.
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 19th August 2013, 04:15 PM   #3503
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 413
As excellent as many of the responses and questions are regarding this particular subject it seems that it will always come to nothing.

IMHO the "truther" charlatans "researchers" never get past presenting half an argument and the "truther" cult members followers are left to extrapolate the other half. Since this is almost always well outside their chosen discipline, the results can be sometimes quite hilarious (if one doesn't take them too seriously).

Thermite is yet another example of this IMHO.

Just my 2 cents and props to some really great posts that are quite informative for reasons not related to nefarious government plots
Porkpie Hat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2013, 05:41 PM   #3504
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miragememories
... If Ivan can find, and test, a credible material that ignites at ~430C, and leaves iron-rich micro-spheroids... MM
This primer paint test has already been done.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2013, 06:04 AM   #3505
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study.

I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side.

Kind of an Amish thing, you know.
Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

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 20th August 2013, 06:45 AM   #3506
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM
No matter what I did, it was doomed to be rejected by 9/11 Truth people because I didn't have buyin ahead of time from at least some top 9/11 truth people. The same will happen with Basile's study and the JREF people if he goes ahead without buyin ahead of time.

Amish people formally "shun" members of their community who go too far astray and don't talk to them. It was a joke...
__________________
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; 20th August 2013 at 07:19 AM. Reason: amish
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 20th August 2013, 01:28 PM   #3507
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM
Does his protocol involve an ignition test under an inert atmosphere? Any ignition test not under an inert atmosphere is worthless. It doesn't even need to be a DSC. Basile could easily do a preliminary test with a jerry-rig setup in a single day.

Just go down to the local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Cross-check against an easily air-ignitable substance such as shredded paper. If his chip fails to ignite, no need to proceed any farther - it's not thermite.

What's the big hang-up? It's almost as though he's afraid to find out he's been wrong all these years.
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 20th August 2013, 02:05 PM   #3508
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Jayzus Frickin' Kee-reist, here's a simple apparatus for doing a preliminary inert atmosphere ignition test on Basile's or Jones's chips.

Just go down to your local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Insert a PTFE two-hole stopper in a flask like this one - one to feed nitrogen through, another to insert the probe from an endoscopy camera. They're really cheap today, and you can feed directly from them into a USB port on your computer.

The nitrogen will flush out the atmospheric oxygen through the nipple in the side. Place your "nanothermite" chip in the bottom of the flask and focus the endoscopy camera on it. Use some shredded paper as a control. Choose your own heat source. If the paper and the chip decompose but fail to ignite, then the chip ain't thermite. If truthers are too lazy to do it, they can send a sample to me, plus $250, and I'll do it myself, and post videos of the whole damned thing.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg vacuum flask.jpg (60.5 KB, 1 views)
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 20th August 2013, 02:33 PM   #3509
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Does his protocol involve an ignition test under an inert atmosphere? Any ignition test not under an inert atmosphere is worthless. It doesn't even need to be a DSC. Basile could easily do a preliminary test with a jerry-rig setup in a single day.

Just go down to the local welding shop and purchase a small tank of nitrogen. Cross-check against an easily air-ignitable substance such as shredded paper. If his chip fails to ignite, no need to proceed any farther - it's not thermite.

What's the big hang-up? It's almost as though he's afraid to find out he's been wrong all these years.
If you had bothered to look at the link showing his proposed study you would know that he does indeed intend to perform such a test in an inert atmosphere.

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 20th August 2013, 03:53 PM   #3510
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If you had bothered to look at the link showing his proposed study you would know that he does indeed intend to perform such a test in an inert atmosphere.

MM
Good. In that case, I showed above how a preliminary test can be done immediately and cheaply. No need to futz around asking for donations. Just do it, Baby!

From Harrit's Toronto presentation, he must have thousands of such chips. No need to worry about sacrificing a few in a destructive test.
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 21st August 2013, 12:38 AM   #3511
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM
Basile's protocol fails (among other things) to identify elemental Al in the chips, which is a requirement for thermite. Other protocols might also be definitive and Millette's method leading to the finding of no elemental aluminium is one such.

The Bentham method waves aside the excessive exotherm as a by-product of thermitic behviour acting on the organic substrate.

Basile and Bentham both take the presence of iron-rich microshperes in the residue as proof of thermitic behaviour, and that is bad science.

Both have a protocol, but one that's biased towards the desired conclusion and inadequate to guide others towards unbiased replication. You yourself have previously pointed out that Millette must have got the "wrong" red-gray magnetically attracted chips when he followed the Basile/Bentham protocol and that in itself condemns the B/B protocol as scientifically useless.

I gets repetitious doesn't it? But as long as you refuse to face up to these points and people can be bothered to argue with you you're going to hear the same thing over and over.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2013, 01:05 AM   #3512
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Redwood: I think that also identifying of "elemental" Al is a part of Basile's "protocol", in the form of planned ESCA (XPS) measurements.

I know almost nothing about XPS, but the corresponding wiki entry X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy says e.g.:

"The photo-emitted electrons that have escaped into the vacuum of the instrument are those that originated from within the top 10 to 12 nm of the material." In other words, only very thin surface layer is reliably analyzed.

It seems that XPS is able to recognize somehow the "bonding" of the elements (e.g. whether the element is in an "elemental form" or in the form of some compound). But, since all aluminum particles are inevitably covered with the aluminum oxide layer with the thickness ca 5 nm, I doubt that the XPS search for elemental aluminum in those stacking Al/Si platelets with the thicknesses ca 40 nm can provide conclusive results... But I can be wrong and I am lazy to learn more in this respect now.

Anyway, it is just loss of time to study again those Al/Si-based platelets in Bentham chips (a) to (d), which were proven to be kaolinite by Jim Millette. If Basile still thinks that there is some Al metal in some red/gray chips, he should definitely look elsewhere

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 21st August 2013 at 02:15 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 21st August 2013, 02:50 AM   #3513
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes.

Wow, that answers four of your questions. Funny how that works.
I'll give you the full question again as you seem to have ignored it.
  • Is Zn and Cr contamination? If so, show how.

Don't selectively quote me again or try to give a smart alec response, it just shows you up for what you are.
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 21st August 2013, 03:22 AM   #3514
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9536/d5ih.png


Other than the absence of surface contaminants, I'm not sure why you feel Fig. 7 provides less detail than Fig. (14)?
Reading comprehension is not your forte is it? Read what I said again. Here's the proof that Fig 7 is not an accurate representation of the EDX spectrum produced by the analysis:



Now this is fine because of space constraints, however, they should mention the presence of other elements. Your problem is you've never seen a SEM in the flesh, don't know how they work, don't know what EDX/EDAX/XEDS is, never operated one and are incapable of learning when those that have show you like I just have.

The above spectrum is far more detailed than the spectra in Fig 7. That spectrum shows conclusively the presence of Sr and Cr as well as Ca and S. That spectrum is the MacKinlay one or sample 1 which is represented by chip a) in the paper. Look at Fig 7a again. Now tell me why S, Ca, Cr and Sr are not shown. That is right, it's not detailed enough. Ever get tired of being wrong? There is no mention in the Harrit et al paper of Strontium yet it was clearly found.
  • Why is there no mention of Sr?
  • What is the purpose of Sr in this claimed thermite?

Oh and that's on a sectioned chip so no "contamination" get out card can be played.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
All 5 chips are presented in the 2009 Bentham paper and were determined to be thermitic.
Buzzzzz. Wrong. You are easily fooled because you have no technical knowledge. You have put so much effort in to defending your fervently religious-like belief that it's impossible for you to see how poor the Harrit et al paper is or that the data in the paper actually identifies the material as paint adhered to steel.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Chips from batches a,b,c, & d were exposed to contamination during the 9/11 WTC destruction and were cross-sectioned to provide a clean surface for XEDS.

The MEK-soaked chip, which was also also exposed to contamination during the 9/11 WTC destruction, came from batch (b), but was not cross-sectioned leaving a 'dirtier' surface for XEDS.

Of course the XEDS of its surface showed differences.MM
The problem again is your lack of experience and knowledge of SEM.

Let me ask you this.
  • What scanning method where the Harrit et al using? Were they using spot or area?
  • Where is the identification of this contamination? Show me pictures of surface contamination.

If you understood how EDX works then you'd understand that the difference between Fig 7 and Fig 14 cannot possibly explained by contamination. Sure there may be very minor differences such as a slightly increased Ca peak but it cannot explain the huge differences, the different Bremsstrahlung and the Zn and Cr. We've been through this, let it go.

If contamination is present, then the MEK test is further proved to be meaningless because any separation of elemental aluminium came from the contamination and not the red layer.

Yep, the elemental Al described after soaking the chip in MEK was from surface contamination. So no thermite. If you disagree show why.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 21st August 2013 at 04:52 AM. Reason: formatting
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 21st August 2013, 03:37 AM   #3515
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Millette also rules out Tnemec.

PS: I think you can throw Sunstealer into the magical paint crowd, too.
I doubt you'll understand, but for the benefit of others.

Millette used the same separation technique as Harrit et al - use of a magnet. That means that in Millette's separated chips there are both Tnemec and Laclade paint chips.

Millette then used EDX to look at the red layer of ALL of these chips. He then compared ALL of the spectra to the spectra in chips a-d in Harrit et al.

All of the chips that were a close enough match to chips a-d (Laclade) were put in the "keep for further analysis" pile. The chips that didn't match (Tnemec and anything else) were put in the don't examine further pile.

When Millette performs analysis on the chips that match the chips a-d then it is impossible for him to find Tnemec because he's already removed all the Tnemec chips from the chips to be examined.

You can do a similar thing yourself: Get a big bowl of fruit, apples bananas, pears, grapes the lot.

Now pick out the fruit that is green and discard the rest. You are left with grapes and apples (and maybe some others).

Now use the apple criteria. Remove all the fruit that looks like an apple and put them in the "keep for further analysis" pile. All the rest put in the don't examine pile.

Now look at the apples. Are any of those apples a grape?

Of course not, yet that is exactly what ergo is saying! He is saying that Millette rules out grapes in his pile of separated apples therefore Sunstealer is wrong.

It's a silly and confused argument.

If you look at Millette's EDX data you can clearly see that there are spectra that are good matches for Laclade and good matches for Tnemec. Remember, truthers never analyse data so they wouldn't know.

Millette had Laclade and Tnemec and probably other magnetic material, however, the task set was to identify what material chip a-d were (apples) so there is no point in analysing further material that doesn't match chips a-d (grapes).
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 21st August 2013, 04:10 AM   #3516
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
[I've snipped the rubbish that isn't worth commentating on and left the rubbish that is]

A simulation based on the imagined results from an imagined test on the imagined composition of a substance that is unobtainable for actual real science testing.

It left you stunned and convinced.
MM
Again you show your ignorance of well established and accepted techniques that are used in industry and labs across the world on a daily basis. Oystein's and Almond's calculations based upon data published by NIST on Laclade composition using well defined Monte-Carlo simulation show just how wrong your ignorant statement is.

The results are an incredible match for spectra in Fig 7. I was surprised myself. If you showed those calculations and the results along with Fig 7 to any metallurgist or materials engineer with SEM experience he'd say that Laclade is an extremely good candidate for the red layer material in chips a-d.

One other thing us professionals do is to never look at data or results in isolation. Truthers always isolate the testing. When you add in all the other data such as the morphology of the particles found in the red layer, the EDX spectrum of those particles, (let alone Millette's FTIR, SEM and TEM work) clearly showing that iron oxide and kaolin pigments were present, not to mention the fact that the carbon matrix has been shown to be epoxy and epoxy fits the DSC data then the only conclusion one can come to is the material is paint and extremely likely to be Laclade red joist paint.

All
the data points to that conclusion.

It's the above level of dishonesty that is the hallmark of the truth movement.

Almond has extensive SEM experience so is ideally placed to perform such analysis because he uses the tools daily. It's funny how someone who has never set foot in a materials lab is pontificating about a subject in which he knows nothing. Just bluster designed to mask the fact that he can't perform any analysis because he lacks the background, knowledge and training.

Why don't you be a bit more like Oystein and actually make the effort to actually learn something and then use that knowledge to do some original work?

You can bluster all you want, it won't pass here, as you well know.

(Is that civil enough for you mods? )
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 21st August 2013, 04:15 AM   #3517
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Here is something from that recent article in aneta.org:

- Harrit et al. also mention another version of the chips in the dust, in very thin, stacked, multilayer structures, in addition to the chips examined in the paper. According to Jones, later unpublished analysis confirmed that these chips have the same red and gray layers as the standard bi-layered chips, along with different layers. He states that "thus we are confident this is the same material -- but in MULTI-LAYER form and with another layer, light-gray as explained in our paper." When a blogger discovered a patent in July 2012, described as looking "like the manual for what was found in the WTC dust", Dr. Steven Jones stated that "It is difficult to see how a 'paint' applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust. Have debunkers even attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? - Any other study of the red-gray chips which fails to replicate our finding of multiple-layered red-gray chips is seen to be INCOMPLETE at best."

To my knowledge no one here has commented on this accusation. Any thoughts?
Anyone who has done any DIY or repaired a car or for that matter done any painting at all will be able to figure out why paint in multiple layers is present.

It's a testament to Jones' myopia and religious belief that he can't work out for himself why painted surfaces become layered in paint (due to multiple applications - oh there I've said it.)
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2013, 04:27 AM   #3518
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
It's kinda hard to do much with a guy who never ever responds to any of my emails requesting we work together on developing a protocol for their study. I have been shunned by everyone involved in any dust experiments on the 9/11 Truth thermite experiment side. Kind of an Amish thing, you know.
Their response should tell you everything you need to know.

Look up the word "Pseudo-science" and you'll see that Harrit/Jones/Farrer/Basile etc fit into that category.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html - look at the How can you recognize pseudoscience? section and see how it applies to all of the people above.

The very fact that they refuse to release samples is damning. What are they afraid of?
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 21st August 2013, 04:48 AM   #3519
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Amish thing?

What is there about Mark Basile's already thoroughly developed protocol that you feel fails to address your concerns?

MM
Well he's wasting his time using DSC whether in air or inert atmosphere for a start. He'd be better of using money allocated to that to use another method that will positively identify what materials are present.

We know that there are two different red layers in the Harrit aet al paper. Truthers refuse to accept this criticism unless of course they are trying to pull the "he's got the wrong chips" nonsense, so unless there are tests to determine exactly what the material is then it's pointless to see how the material responds to DSC.

Secondly the DSC test is flawed anyway because there are 2 completely different materials in each chip - a gray metallic layer and a red epoxy based layer. You can't learn much from the use of DSC which is a weight based experiment when you don't know what weight each of the two layers makes up. This has been explained at least half a dozen times before.

DSC is a red-herring.
They only did it because Tillitson and Gash did.

He would be far better of doing what Millette did and using low temperature ashing to separate out pigment particles and then examine them, thereby positively identifying the pigment.

Don't forget that Tnemec contains no kaolin or epoxy. Basile has no criteria for separating out chips that are identical to chips a-d. In his mind all red chips are the same material. His entire stance and hence methodology is flawed from the beginning. Quite funny really. Watch how they get a different FTIR spectrum because they are testing Tnemec or something else instead of the same material as chips a-d and then claim, "see, see, Millette had the wrong chips!"

Instead of dictating to the independent lab regarding which tests he wants he should simply say "identify the material". The lab will then, based upon the sample received and some preliminary testing, put together a test matrix with costing showing how this set of tests will positively identify the material. If costs are prohibitive then a bit of dialogue between parties will usually sort out the best bang for buck outcome.

The problem of course is this doesn't adhere to the truther psuedo-science of reproducibility whilst they ignore they're own reproducibility failings. No point reproducing test methods that are flawed

Last edited by Sunstealer; 21st August 2013 at 04:58 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 21st August 2013, 08:16 AM   #3520
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
delete

Last edited by Senenmut; 21st August 2013 at 08:18 AM.
Senenmut 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 02:15 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.