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 6th February 2014, 12:17 AM   #3921
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why not blow the 2009 Bentham paper out of the water by taking a few minutes to heat his no longer needed chip samples a further 30C in his muffle furnace????
Because that wasn't his objective. His objective was to analyse the chips and determine their composition.

Meanwhile your claim that he tested 'the wrong chips' has been challenged by several people here, showing with crystal clarity how the Harrit paper contradicts your claim. Why don't you answer them, ideally showing your sources (as they have)?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 05:22 AM   #3922
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
With respect to this thread's topic, I wonder why Millette did not answer what for him would have been an even more trivial question.

Why not blow the 2009 Bentham paper out of the water by taking a few minutes to heat his no longer needed chip samples a further 30C in his muffle furnace????

The only credible explanation I can think of is that such an easily performed test risked discrediting his previously formed 'safe' opinion.

If he was so certain that his a-d chips were a chemical match for those chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper, than he had no reason for not discrediting the paper using similar test methodology.

Of course if he ended up with only paint ash residue, it would be clear proof that his a-d chips were not a chemical match for the a-d chips of interest that were highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Because that wasn't his objective. His objective was to analyse the chips and determine their composition.

Meanwhile your claim that he tested 'the wrong chips' has been challenged by several people here, showing with crystal clarity how the Harrit paper contradicts your claim. Why don't you answer them, ideally showing your sources (as they have)?
Sorry Glenn, but the way Millette's investigation was originally promoted by Chris Mohr, was that he was going to follow the 2009 Bentham paper testing protocols as closely as possible.

Millette failed to determine what the composition of those chips were since he never proved the chips he examined met all the stated criteria.

Of course my mismatch claim (and Dr. Jones publicly claims as well), is challenged 'here'.

It's what people only interested in suppressing the truth do.

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 6th February 2014, 05:58 AM   #3923
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Millette failed to determine what the composition of those chips were since he never proved the chips he examined met all the stated criteria.

Of course my mismatch claim (and Dr. Jones publicly claims as well), is challenged 'here'.
Then you need to show (for the first time, I should add, after many such requests) that Harrit et al used resistivity as a selection criterion, either for each individual chip or as a generalised method to learn to identify the 'correct' chips.

You have never shown this and it isn't in the Bentham paper. If you have information in support of your claim that's not available in Bentham then we would be very interested (and Millette was denied information essential to his tests, incidentally).
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 07:47 AM   #3924
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Glenn and MM,

I'm going by memory here. If I recall, I think MM caught my mistake a couple years ago. I was flying by the seat of my pants (marrying ministers are not used to organzing scientific studies) and I may have said two contradictory things in the beginning: one, that I was going to let "Lab Guy" do his job and not tell him what protocol to use.... just to ask, "is this thermite?" That, of course, is what Jim Millette did. But MM or someone may have also caught me saying at one point that I was going to have someone match the protocol of the Bentham paper. If my memory is correct, then my mistake... not Jim Millette's.

MM and others: I believe Oystein or someone got an email from Niels Harrit who stated something to the effect that the resistivity test was not part of the core protocol but just a secondary test of some kind. If my memory is correct there, that would explain why the resistivity was reported to be done on only one chip and not listed along with other selection criteria they established (such as red-grey, attracted by a magnet). Does anyone remember this email?
__________________
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 6th February 2014, 08:29 AM   #3925
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette failed to determine what the composition of those chips were since he never proved the chips he examined met all the stated criteria. MM
Absolute rubbish and you know it. When I take Georgio through the comparison everyone will see that Millette did study the correct chips, namely those that matched chips a-d. You will disagree no matter what because you lose face and have to back track on everything you've said if you agree.

You can't even agree with everyone else that chips a-d are the same material in Harrit et al!

Are the chips a-d in Harrit et al the same material?

Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question when there is no conjecture or argument over this issue? Cue a dodgy and mealy mouthed reply.
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 6th February 2014, 08:30 AM   #3926
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM and others: I believe Oystein or someone got an email from Niels Harrit who stated something to the effect that the resistivity test was not part of the core protocol but just a secondary test of some kind. If my memory is correct there, that would explain why the resistivity was reported to be done on only one chip and not listed along with other selection criteria they established (such as red-grey, attracted by a magnet). Does anyone remember this email?
I found the following in an exchange involving Oystein, but the quote was from a Harrit email received by Gamolon :

"The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...73#post9102773

If it's as stated then the resistivity test was not part of the selection protocol.

And in

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...40#post9255140

Gamolon relates -

"please explain why he, in the video below, talks about a large jar of dust he just received, from which he takes a small sample and puts it into a plastic bag in order to give to the audience to separate with a magnet."

and (Harrit speaking) -

"With a little bit of luck, you may also get a chance to see.. I don't know about this sample, I just got it yesterday morning, I don't know how much is in it, but these red, we call them chips, is what we're gonna talk about for the next 20 minutes or half hour. "

i.e. he is stating to the audience that the red chips on the magnet are 'the chips of interest'.

But MM was doing the denial dance pretty frantically back then too. No change, I see.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 08:34 AM   #3927
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM and others: I believe Oystein or someone got an email from Niels Harrit who stated something to the effect that the resistivity test was not part of the core protocol but just a secondary test of some kind. If my memory is correct there, that would explain why the resistivity was reported to be done on only one chip and not listed along with other selection criteria they established (such as red-grey, attracted by a magnet). Does anyone remember this email?
It was actually Gamolon, in this very thread (p.69, message #2733). Miragememories was made aware of it but he refused to acknowledge that fact.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If at the very least, he applied the easy YES/NO Resistance test described in the 2009 Bentham paper and then ran his tests, his argument that his findings were based on similar 9/11 WTC dust chips would carry more weight.
If this resistivity test was done to further separate red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips and red/gray magnetically attracted thermite chips, then why did Harrit say this to me in an email?

Originally Posted by Harrit
The resistivity test were done in random on the chips already isolated as described. The information obtained must be considered "supplementary material".
They didn't run resistivity tests on the chips already separated and THEN run the rest of the tests in the paper. It was an afterthought to show that in testing some random chips, they could assume ALL the chips isolated with the above criteria were thermite.

You have it backwards.
ETA: Oops, GlennB beat me to it.

Last edited by pgimeno; 6th February 2014 at 08:36 AM.
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 6th February 2014, 02:43 PM   #3928
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
I somehow get the feeling that the greater conductivity of some chips might be related to the mysterious gray layer spalled oxidized steel layer, depending on where the electrodes are placed.

There's no way to tell for sure, since H&J never give us their test protocols. It's pathological science at its very worst, pathological science with a political agenda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science)
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 6th February 2014, 04:28 PM   #3929
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette failed to determine what the composition of those chips were since he never proved the chips he examined met all the stated criteria.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Absolute rubbish and you know it.

When I take Georgio through the comparison everyone will see that Millette did study the correct chips, namely those that matched chips a-d.

You will disagree no matter what because you lose face and have to back track on everything you've said if you agree.

You can't even agree with everyone else that chips a-d are the same material in Harrit et al!

Are the chips a-d in Harrit et al the same material?

Why do you refuse to answer such a simple question when there is no conjecture or argument over this issue?

Cue a dodgy and mealy mouthed reply."
"mealy mouthed"?

Is baiting and bullying respondents the standard academic approach you learned in school, or is childish incivility what they taught you?

I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

There are a number of valid reasons why I cannot agree with you on this.

Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.

Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.

Millette soaked his chip sample in a MEK solution and it behaved in a manner associated with paint (softened).

Dr. Harrit et al soaked their chip in a MEK solution for 55 hours and it did not soften or dissolve.

Millette effectively eliminated Tnemec steel primer paint as a possibility when he could not find a chemical match with any of the 177 listed formulations.

The other candidate primer paint, LeClede he also eliminated from contention which Chris Mohr colourfully attested to. I have additional material arguing against LeClede primer paint but Millette's disagreement with it is sufficient argument for the moment.

Additionally, the steel primer paints used on the WTC steel are basically a ceramic material which is chemically stable up to 800 C.

Dr. Harrit's sample ignited at approximately 430 C.

Millette's TEM analysis showed his sample selections contained titanium and no lead.

Though unpublished, Dr. Harrit et al have TEM analysis that show traces of lead but no titanium.

Since Millette regrettably refused to do 430 C ignition tests, I won't bother introducing that argument.

Millette claims to have found kaolin plates (common to paint) as thin as 6 nm.

Dr. Harrit et al report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick".

Additionally, Dr. Harrit et al discovered that MEK paint solvent induced swelling that segregated the silicon from the aluminum thus establishing that the those two elements were not chemically bound and therefore, the plates were not kaolin.

You (Sunstealer), have made much to-do about Fig.14 in the 2009 Bentham paper, claiming an XEDS spectrum match with Tnemec steel primer paint.

The problem is that you ignore the fact that that particular chip sample had an unwashed and contaminated surface whereas the other XEDS spectrum results were obtained from clean uncontaminated surfaces.

In addition, Tnemec only has aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc. As observed in the XEDS spectra for cleaned chips, once the surface contamination is removed, the calcium and the zinc no longer appear.

There is more to report about the finding of elemental aluminum but I'll stop here for now.

Millette obviously tested chosen chips which were visually similar and attracted to a magnet but by no means a match for the highlighted chips referred to in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 04:33 PM   #3930
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
That's not the question you've been asked.

Were chips a-d in the Harrit paper the same material? We agree with the paper, that they are. It's not a trick question.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th February 2014, 05:18 PM   #3931
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
I somehow get the feeling that the greater conductivity of some chips might be related to the mysterious gray layer spalled oxidized steel layer, depending on where the electrodes are placed.

There's no way to tell for sure, since H&J never give us their test protocols. It's pathological science at its very worst, pathological science with a political agenda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science)
This is the point I made initially on this test. They did not do a measurement system analysis of this conductivity test. We have no idea as to it's accuracy or repeatability. For all we know he measured the wrong layer of the chip, or caught a metal filament. One data point is one data point. It may be at the wrong end of the bell curve. We have no way to know.

It is worthless. To hang your hat on it and cling to it is pure desperation.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 6th February 2014 at 06:00 PM.
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 6th February 2014, 05:58 PM   #3932
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
.........

There's no way to tell for sure, since H&J never give us their test protocols. It's pathological science at its very worst, pathological science with a political agenda. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science)
And when you mix pathological science with pathological believing
- well that's a deadly cocktail.
__________________
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 6th February 2014, 06:21 PM   #3933
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
That's not the question you've been asked.

Were chips a-d in the Harrit paper the same material? We agree with the paper, that they are. It's not a trick question.
If you don't like my answer, maybe it's because your incapable of asking the right question?

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 7th February 2014, 12:00 AM   #3934
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"mealy mouthed"?

Is baiting and bullying respondents the standard academic approach you learned in school, or is childish incivility what they taught you?

I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

There are a number of valid reasons why I cannot agree with you on this.

Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.

Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.

Millette soaked his chip sample in a MEK solution and it behaved in a manner associated with paint (softened).

Dr. Harrit et al soaked their chip in a MEK solution for 55 hours and it did not soften or dissolve.

Millette effectively eliminated Tnemec steel primer paint as a possibility when he could not find a chemical match with any of the 177 listed formulations.

The other candidate primer paint, LeClede he also eliminated from contention which Chris Mohr colourfully attested to. I have additional material arguing against LeClede primer paint but Millette's disagreement with it is sufficient argument for the moment.

Additionally, the steel primer paints used on the WTC steel are basically a ceramic material which is chemically stable up to 800 C.

Dr. Harrit's sample ignited at approximately 430 C.

Millette's TEM analysis showed his sample selections contained titanium and no lead.

Though unpublished, Dr. Harrit et al have TEM analysis that show traces of lead but no titanium.

Since Millette regrettably refused to do 430 C ignition tests, I won't bother introducing that argument.

Millette claims to have found kaolin plates (common to paint) as thin as 6 nm.

Dr. Harrit et al report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick".

Additionally, Dr. Harrit et al discovered that MEK paint solvent induced swelling that segregated the silicon from the aluminum thus establishing that the those two elements were not chemically bound and therefore, the plates were not kaolin.

You (Sunstealer), have made much to-do about Fig.14 in the 2009 Bentham paper, claiming an XEDS spectrum match with Tnemec steel primer paint.

The problem is that you ignore the fact that that particular chip sample had an unwashed and contaminated surface whereas the other XEDS spectrum results were obtained from clean uncontaminated surfaces.

In addition, Tnemec only has aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc. As observed in the XEDS spectra for cleaned chips, once the surface contamination is removed, the calcium and the zinc no longer appear.

There is more to report about the finding of elemental aluminum but I'll stop here for now.

Millette obviously tested chosen chips which were visually similar and attracted to a magnet but by no means a match for the highlighted chips referred to in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
And all of the above amounts to NO evidence of super special Nano-thermite or an inside job
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 7th February 2014, 05:18 AM   #3935
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
And all of the above amounts to NO evidence of super special Nano-thermite or an inside job
It was not meant to.

It was to show that Millette looked at the wrong chips.

The proof of nanothermite is exhibited in the residue of the ignition tests performed on the right chips.

Unfortunately, as we all know Millette studiously avoided that critical test.

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 7th February 2014, 09:30 AM   #3936
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It's what people only interested in suppressing the truth do.

MM
Is this what YOU'RE doing MM? Suppressing the truth?

Is this why you continually spread your incorrect interpretation regarding Harrit using the resistivity test as a selection process? Even when you've been shown that Harrit's own paper AND his email to me clearly state the opposite of what you think? Why do you you ignore these facts? I'll tell you why you're doing this. It's because it's the only thing you have to discredit Millette's paper, that he tested the wrong chips. Without this "resistivity" argument, Millette followed the exact selection criteria as Harrit did in his paper. The problem is, Millette found red/gray, magnetically attracted paint chips in the dust where Harrit claimed only red/gray, magnetically attracted THERMITIC chips existed.
1. Do you not think it strange that Harrit, being the "detail oriented scientist" that he is, did not analyze ANY paint chips he had separated out in order to get data on them and then publish the results along side his thermitic chip data?
2. Why did Harrit have to use tabulated resistivity data for paint coatings from a book? He could have easily used the resistivity test data from the tests you claim he used to separate out the red/gray paint chips from the red/gray thermitic chips.
3. Why did Harrit, in an email to me, tell me that RANDOM resistivity tests were done AFTER the red/gray chips were isolated as described and that the resistivity data was supplemental material?
4. If each and every test performed in the paper was needed to prove that the red gray chips were thermtic, then why were some tests done on some chips and not others? Why wasn't every test done on EVERY chip? Why were the Delassio/Breidenbach chip samples not DSC tested?
5. Why didn't Harrit use the red/gray paint chips he separated out for his MEK tests? Why did he use OTHER paint chip samples?
6. In Harrit's paper, "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT", why did he use NIST's published composition of primer paint instead of analyzing, testing, and publishing the results of paint chips he supposedly already separated out? He had them right there in his hand according to you!!!!
7. Why in a video presentation did Harrit tell his audience to take the dust filled bag, drag a magnet over the bag, and look at the red/gray chips attracted to the magnet? He made no mention of a resistivity test.
The answer to all these questions is simple. Harrit and his group went into these tests with the assumption that ALL the red/gray chips collected with a magnet were thermitic and nothing else. He performed tests on random and applied those results to ALL the red/gray chips because of this. Harrit's paper says EVERY red/gray, magnetically attracted chip taken from the dust samples were thermitic. After the paper was published, Jones and others opened their pie-holes and say that there were different kinds of red/gray chips. Millette, at the very least, proves there were other red/gray chips, agreeing with Jones' statement. This makes Harrit's paper worthless.

Last edited by Gamolon; 7th February 2014 at 09:33 AM.
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 7th February 2014, 09:43 AM   #3937
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Unfortunately, as we all know Millette studiously avoided that critical test.

MM
You said the resistivity test was what they used to "easily" separate out the red/gray paint chips from the red/gray thermitic chips?

Why didn't Harrit do a DSC test on the similar, red/gray paint chips he supposedly separated out? It was "critical" wasn't it?
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 7th February 2014, 10:03 AM   #3938
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It was not meant to.

It was to show that Millette looked at the wrong chips.

The proof of nanothermite is exhibited in the residue of the ignition tests performed on the right chips.

Unfortunately, as we all know Millette studiously avoided that critical test.

MM
Ok, can you explain how the red paint chips were attracted to the magent ?

As for proof of nanothermite exhibited in the residue of the ignition test ? I assume you are talking about the iron rich microspheres from the rust
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 7th February 2014, 10:04 AM   #3939
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Duplicate

Last edited by Spanx; 7th February 2014 at 10:06 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 01:55 PM   #3940
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It's what people only interested in suppressing the truth do.
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
"Is this what YOU'RE doing MM? Suppressing the truth?"
If I am, it is purely unintentional.

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
"Why do you you ignore these facts?

I'll tell you why you're doing this.

It's because it's the only thing you have to discredit Millette's paper, that he tested the wrong chips."
If that is what you choose to believe Gamolon, than you are guilty of posting without reading or fact checking.

Step back a few posts and you can read a significant list of facts supporting my claim that Millette "tested the wrong chips".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3929

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 7th February 2014 at 01:57 PM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 02:49 PM   #3941
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If I am, it is purely unintentional.

If that is what you choose to believe Gamolon, than you are guilty of posting without reading or fact checking.

Step back a few posts and you can read a significant list of facts supporting my claim that Millette "tested the wrong chips".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3929

MM
What did 60 Minutes say?

Millette's paper beats the fraud of Jones. Keep up the failed support for fraud. Is your work published somewhere? You act like you have proof of thermite, but don't understand the DSC proves it is not thermite. Why are two samples less than thermite in energy? Why does Jones thermite not get hot?

Last edited by beachnut; 7th February 2014 at 02:51 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 07:18 PM   #3942
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"mealy mouthed"?

Is baiting and bullying respondents the standard academic approach you learned in school, or is childish incivility what they taught you?
Nope, the description is entirely appropriate when dealing with people like you who have zero relevant knowledge or education on the subject and who post in the manner that you do.

Quote:
mealy-mouthed
[mee-lee-moutht, -mouthd] Show IPA
adjective
avoiding the use of direct and plain language, as from timidity, excessive delicacy, or hypocrisy; inclined to mince words; insincere, devious, or compromising.
Applies perfectly to you as I'll demonstrate.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
That was not the question I asked and you know it is not the question I asked. You have been asked dozens of times yet you refuse. This is mealy mouthed and dodging the question.

I shall repeat it for the umpteenth time. Here is the EDX spectrum for the red layers on chips a-d in the Harrit et al paper.



Do you agree that chips a, b, c and d in the above diagram are the same material?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There are a number of valid reasons why I cannot agree with you on this.
None of them are valid and what's more you do not have the qualifications or experience to decide what is valid or not.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.
Irrelevant - paint is paint is paint. We've said this all along. Even if we could not determine the specific paint that Harrit analysed that does not detract from the fact he found paint and not thermite.

To expand on this: Millette's criteria is to match his chips to chips a-d in Harrit.

Chips a-d in Harrit are NOT Tnemec red primer paint therefore this will automatically be ruled out. Millette only had the data for Tnemec red, he didn't have the data for Laclade red joist paint when he made that statement.

The only thing Millette stated was he didn't observe any Strontium in his samples but that is to be expected as his EDX analysis was on the surface where we'd expect Strontium ions to leach from whilst the Chromium ions migrate to the substrate's (steel's) surface. That's the entire point regarding Strontium Chromate as a corrosion inhibitor.

Lastly the EDX data Millette supplied do not show any great detail. We know that chips a-d contain strontium because we have a more detailed EDX spectrum from one of the chips:



Contrast that with Fig 7 (the one you refuse to answer on)



So everyone can see that Fig 7 is not the true detail. The same is true for Millette's EDX figs because they are so small.

That figure with the notation "Label A: Cross Section" is a chip from MacKinlay, which is from dust found in her apartment.

Quote:
2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4.
If we now look at how Harrit et al labels chips a-d they say:

Quote:
Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
That means that chip a) is the MacKinlay chip.

Interesting to see that even though Strontium and Chromium are present it isn't commented upon in the paper. That would be no surprise if the authors only saw the less detailed EDX spectrum.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint
No they did not. You have been repeatedly told by several people here that this is not true.

You dishonestly dodge the question when asked on it. Why don't you answer Gamalon's questions? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3912

You won't because you know he's caught you lying.

What Harrit et al did is quote resistivity data from a paper:

Quote:
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately 10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically over 1010 ohm-m [31].
[31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.


You have repeatedly said that Harrit tested primer paint and you've repeatedly been shown that he nor his team did. It is not mentioned in the paper at all. The only reason you keep bringing the resistivity up is because you falsely claim that resistivity is a criteria for chip isolation - it isn't and the Harrit et al paper does not state resistivity as a criteria for isolating chips.

You have been caught making things up and when pulled up on it continued to try to lie your way out. That won't wash here when many people know the Harrit er al paper inside out.

Stop being dishonest.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.
They tested one chip of unknown origin. That chip is supposedly comprised of two different materials, one of which is predominantly metallic.

They never compared their data with actual Laclade or Tnemec red primer paint. The test is pointless and this has already been explained in great detail to you.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette soaked his chip sample in a MEK solution and it behaved in a manner associated with paint (softened).
Different types of paint will behave differently when soaked in MEK. It depends on a range of factors. This has already been explained to you (by Redwood, Ivan Kminek and others) in detail. There is nothing that the MEK soaking can tell us about the actual compounds present in the red layer over and above what we can already observe in the SEM data. It's a pointless test.

Instead of keeping that in the paper the authors excluded FTIR data which would tell you exactly what the organic compound the red layer was mostly comprised of. They substituted a naff test for one that would be clear to all what the material was.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al soaked their chip in a MEK solution for 55 hours and it did not soften or dissolve.
Again this makes no difference because the material soaked in MEK by Harrit et al does not match the material in chips a-d. Soaking a substance in MEK is not going to tell you what the material is. See above.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette effectively eliminated Tnemec steel primer paint as a possibility when he could not find a chemical match with any of the 177 listed formulations.
Of course Millette would reject tnemec red primer paint for his samples that matched chips a-d in Harrit et al.

The chips a-d in Harrit et all are NOT Tnemec red primer paint. You know this already. It's been discussed. There has never been any doubt, even from day 1 that chips a-d or the equivalent chips Millette tests further are Tnemec.

However, Millette has other chips that are very good matches for Tnemec red primer paint, he simply never performed further tests on them because those chips did not meet the criteria and therefore the scope of work Millette was asked to do, just as Fig 14 shows that the chip Harrit soaked in MEK is actually Tnemec red primer paint and therefore cannot be used in the same data set as chips a-d in the same paper.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The other candidate primer paint, LeClede he also eliminated from contention which Chris Mohr colourfully attested to. I have additional material arguing against LeClede primer paint but Millette's disagreement with it is sufficient argument for the moment.
Doesn't matter if Millette rules out all red primer paints in the world. The fact of the matter is he correctly matches his samples to Harrit et al using exactly the same isolation technique taken from the paper and the same techniques, namely SEM with EDX, that allow the materials engineer to ascertain whether the materials in question are the same.


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Additionally, the steel primer paints used on the WTC steel are basically a ceramic material which is chemically stable up to 800 C.
No they are not.

NIST or FEMA only performed heating tests on Tnemec red primer paint and even then everyone can see that the steel/paint spalled off the the steel.

There was no thermal testing using LaClade red joist paint.

Additionally there was no testing using samples that match the dual red/gray layered chips, so any comparison is moot.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit's sample ignited at approximately 430 C.
Harrit's unidentified chips undergo containing multiple materials exhibit an exotherm over a range of temperature whose peak is approximately at 430C.

This test does not identify what the material is, but more damningly does not correlate with any data on known thermite. The temperature is far too low.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette's TEM analysis showed his sample selections contained titanium and no lead.
Point to the Lead in Fig 7:



or for that matter any other data in Harrit et al. No Lead is seen here.

The only mention of Lead in Harrit is

Quote:
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
and in the conclusions.

Harrit et al only observe that some chips contain Lead, but this is not shown on the chips a-d that they claim are thermite.

Why are you not questioning the fact that Millette finds no Lead but that Harrit et al don't find Lead in all their chips?

Why do you leap on the fact that Millette's chips appear to not contain Lead and use that as an argument, but refuse to use the same criteria for Harrit's own chips which also don't contain Lead?

You are not using equal criteria.

Did you know that some of Millette's chips also contained copper? Specifically as identified through TEM on hexagonal Si/Al platelets.

Why do you not mention this match with Harrit's own observation?

Secondly Titanium was observed in post DSC residue, namely Fig 25, here it is at the top:



So where did that Titanium come from? It had to have been present in the chip subjected to DSC. It's not going to magically appear.

So any attempt by you to claim that Millette had the wrong chips because they do not contain Lead but do contain Titanium is wrong, because we have evidence from the same paper that you champion, that explicitly shows that evidence of Lead or Titanium is not universal.

Naturally occurring minerals such as Kaolinite, along with other minerals used in the manufacture of coatings are going to contain other elements by their very nature. This is one of the reasons why the Harrit et al paper observes the presence of elements that would never be present in thermite.

Harrit et al ask a question:
Quote:
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others?
Pray tell us Miragememories why do so some chips contain these elements and others not?

Why was the fact that Strontium and Chromium were observed in the MacKinlay chip but not mentioned in the paper?

Please apply the same logic you are using to try to discredit Millette to the actual paper you support.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Though unpublished, Dr. Harrit et al have TEM analysis that show traces of lead but no titanium.
So what? See above.

Incidentally, why did Harrit, as lead author, not insist that the TEM data was included instead of rubbish like the resistivity test, DSC, MEK soaking and a picture of someone igniting chips with a torch?

Why haven't they published this data just like they promised to publish the FTIR data?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since Millette regrettably refused to do 430 C ignition tests, I won't bother introducing that argument.
You have already done so on numerous occasions yet refuse to acknowledge the answers.

Millette's task was to positively identify the material that matched chips a-d in the Harrit et al paper. There is no need to heat the chips to 700C as per the DSC test or heat them to 430C to do that. DSC cannot positively identify such a range of materials as observed in chips a-d let alone the material found in Fig 17 or any of the other myriad of materials Harrit et al separated with a magnet.

The reason for low temperature ashing was to remove the organic material so that analysis using TEM could be performed in order to identify the particles present in the organic matrix.

He successfully does this and shows that Kaolin, iron oxide pigment and some Titanium Dioxide is present.

This is where you get the presence of Titanium from. Anyone who knows anything about coatings will know that TiO2 produces a white colour. It's used extensively through industry and is used in paper and plastics as well as paint. There is no mystery here.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette claims to have found kaolin plates (common to paint) as thin as 6 nm.

Dr. Harrit et al report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick".
This is a good example of your dishonesty and the fact that you are trying to twist observations to suit your own agenda.

Millette states (on page 4 under Results) his observations regarding the thickness of Kaolin plates:

Quote:
The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel. The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix (Figures 10 through 15) (Appendix D).
The thinnest observed where 6nm thick and therefore not all of them where of that thickness.

1 micrometer is 1 micron. 1 micron = 1000nm (nanometers)

So as you and everyone else can see, the 40nm thickness observed by Harrit et al falls easily within the range that Millette observed. People without SEM experience will regularly think that the very tiny area observed by SEM and subsequently published is completely typical of the entire sample. It's not, and one must bear that in mind, especially when dealing with a myriad of particles, that differences in size are to be expected.

Kaolinite is a natural material and will therefore form a range of sizes within the characteristic hexagonal platelet shape. EDX performed on these thin hexagonal platelets by Millette matches the same data from Harrit et al due to the peak height ratio of Al/Si and therefore shows that these platelets are the same material in both instances.

A fact MM ignores.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Additionally, Dr. Harrit et al discovered that MEK paint solvent induced swelling that segregated the silicon from the aluminum thus establishing that the those two elements were not chemically bound and therefore, the plates were not kaolin.
Dr Harrit was soaking a chip that didn't contain any material that had Silicon bonded to Aluminium. The MEK soaked chip does not contain Kaolin.

There is absolutely no evidence in the paper showing that the chip soaked in MEK is the same material as chips a-d. The paper does not show the chip's surface in the same detail as chips a-d in figs; 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. Therefore there is no way to ascertain any separation of elements.

Similarly this chip is claimed to be contaminated. There is no indication in the paper to say that the chip was cleaned prior to soaking in MEK. Therefore there is no way to determine whether a separation of elements is simply surface contamination migrating to one area and then being identified.

Anyone who has eyes can clearly see the correlation between Si and O and Al and O. See fig 15.

No one is saying that this chip contains kaolin and therefore a correlation between Al and Si exists to any extent.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You (Sunstealer), have made much to-do about Fig.14 in the 2009 Bentham paper, claiming an XEDS spectrum match with Tnemec steel primer paint.
Yep, and I cna back that up using Dr Jones and one of his talks.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The problem is that you ignore the fact that that particular chip sample had an unwashed and contaminated surface whereas the other XEDS spectrum results were obtained from clean uncontaminated surfaces.
All ready discussed numerous times. There is no way that contamination of the surface can explain this:



I have made a correction, identifying the proper peaks from the original:



turning into this:



(which you refuse to comment upon)

especially given this:



The bottom image is taken from a talk by Jones whereby he claims that this EDX spectrum is of WTC primer paint and then he compares this to the chips a-d in Harrit et al.

Here is an up to date image taken from a the talk:



which can be found here (see 1.14:51 and onwards):

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


So anyone can see that the EDX spectrum that Jones presents as Tnemec red primer paint matches the chip in Fig 14 that was soaked in MEK. This also shows that Oystein's Monte-Carlo simulations regarding Tnemec red are correct as are his simulations on Laclade for chips a-d)

The fact that Jones is only comparing one known primer paint with to specific samples a-d, when there are actually two known primer paints, as discovered by our friend; the late Ivan Kminek, whilst ignoring the fact that his data matches Fig 14 which is the chip soaked in MEK is telling. He is only comparing one set of data and conveniently ignoring the other, either through ignorance, incompetence or fraud.

Again; we've been through all of this but MM refuses to acknowledge the data.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In addition, Tnemec only has aluminum bound to calcium.
Not true. The composition of Tnemec is as follows:



An aluminate is a chemical compound containing Aluminium as part of a negative ion. So you have to include Oxygen as part of the compound in this case.

It's easily seen from Fig 15 in Harrit et al that even after soaking there is a strong correlation between Al and O as well as Si and O as expected. Funny how there is no corresponding map for Ca even though MM states categorically that Al is only bound to Ca. MM - why is there no map for Ca when it was so predominant on the pre-soaked EDX? Why would anyone assume that the entire presence of Ca was due to contamination when it was known that Tnemec red contains Ca?


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Tnemec also contains zinc. As observed in the XEDS spectra for cleaned chips, once the surface contamination is removed, the calcium and the zinc no longer appear.
Tnemec does contain Zn but the rest is not true.

Detail explicitly, quoting from the Harrit et al paper, where cleaning, by whatever means, is shown.

Some of Millette's chips, which he didn't further observe due to them being outside the criteria of matching the red layer of chips a-d in Harrit at al comprehensively show the presence of both Zn and Ca after washing with de-ionized water. (They are a good match for Tnemec red btw)

Unfortunately you have this notion that the EDX spectrum in Fig 14 is the same as that in Fig 7 (You know, the one you won't comment on). It's not as if I haven't shown above (and previously in the many threads) that this is not true.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There is more to report about the finding of elemental aluminum but I'll stop here for now.
No there isn't with respect to chips a-d as I have comprehensively shown. Stop making statements that you cannot back.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette obviously tested chosen chips which were visually similar and attracted to a magnet but by no means a match for the highlighted chips referred to in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Again wrong. Millette not only uses the Harrit et al paper's criteria for separating chips of interest in exactly the same way as detailed in the paper (without your ludicrous resistivity test which is false), but also goes on to separate the chips for further testing that comprehensively match the data as shown in Harrit et al.

All of your points have been thoroughly shown to be nonsense and nothing more than desperation.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 07:39 PM   #3943
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It was not meant to.
I agree.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It was to show that Millette looked at the wrong chips.
Unfortunately it doesn't - see above post.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The proof of nanothermite is exhibited in the residue of the ignition tests performed on the right chips.
No it doesn't - in fact teh residue shows exactly the opposite - as I have previously explained. Once again, here is a photo of the residue:



You can clearly see the hexagonal platelets still present. You can clearly see the rhomboidal iron oxide pigment still present. That means that these components did not react even though the test reached 700C, some 270C above the temperature that is claimed that these reactants reacted!

If the local temperature reached above the melting point of iron; 1540C, then we'd expect to see no structures of the reactants. The fact that we still see hexagonal platelets and rhombohedral iron oxide present after such heating proves that there is no thermite reaction between the two.

That one photo on it's own debunks the entire paper.

Secondly there is no analysis of the products associated with the thermite reaction, which is:

Fe2O3 + Al --> Fe + Al2O3

The paper does not identify any Al2O3 as a by-product of the reaction and therefore cannot claim that the above reaction has occurred unlike Gash and Tillitson, which the Harrit et al paper references and tries to base itself upon.

You have been told this numerous times but continue to ignore this crucial fact.


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Unfortunately, as we all know Millette studiously avoided that critical test.

MM
No he didn't, it wasn't required to positively identify the material.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th February 2014, 11:38 PM   #3944
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Sunstealer and MM,
I don't think any mention was made of the fact that Ivan had concocted some fake LaClede primer paint, and if I remember correctly, he did an MEK soak on the paint he created based on the LaClede formula he found, and the chips did not dissolve or soften, but stayed hard for months! Even if his fake LaClede paint wasn't the actual stuff, at the very least it does show that different kinds of paints behave differently when subjected to MEK soaks... and his fake LaClede paint actually behaved in a way that was the same as the chips Harrit/Jones soaked.
Soon I will be releasing some new information about the "different chips" argument. Stay tuned as I put the finishing touches on my YouTube epilogue.
__________________
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; 7th February 2014 at 11:43 PM. Reason: last sentence added
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 8th February 2014, 08:40 AM   #3945
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"mealy mouthed"?

Is baiting and bullying respondents the standard academic approach you learned in school, or is childish incivility what they taught you?

I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.

There are a number of valid reasons why I cannot agree with you on this.

Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.

Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.

Millette soaked his chip sample in a MEK solution and it behaved in a manner associated with paint (softened).

Dr. Harrit et al soaked their chip in a MEK solution for 55 hours and it did not soften or dissolve.

Millette effectively eliminated Tnemec steel primer paint as a possibility when he could not find a chemical match with any of the 177 listed formulations.

The other candidate primer paint, LeClede he also eliminated from contention which Chris Mohr colourfully attested to. I have additional material arguing against LeClede primer paint but Millette's disagreement with it is sufficient argument for the moment.

Additionally, the steel primer paints used on the WTC steel are basically a ceramic material which is chemically stable up to 800 C.

Dr. Harrit's sample ignited at approximately 430 C.

Millette's TEM analysis showed his sample selections contained titanium and no lead.

Though unpublished, Dr. Harrit et al have TEM analysis that show traces of lead but no titanium.

Since Millette regrettably refused to do 430 C ignition tests, I won't bother introducing that argument.

Millette claims to have found kaolin plates (common to paint) as thin as 6 nm.

Dr. Harrit et al report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick".

Additionally, Dr. Harrit et al discovered that MEK paint solvent induced swelling that segregated the silicon from the aluminum thus establishing that the those two elements were not chemically bound and therefore, the plates were not kaolin.

You (Sunstealer), have made much to-do about Fig.14 in the 2009 Bentham paper, claiming an XEDS spectrum match with Tnemec steel primer paint.

The problem is that you ignore the fact that that particular chip sample had an unwashed and contaminated surface whereas the other XEDS spectrum results were obtained from clean uncontaminated surfaces.

In addition, Tnemec only has aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc. As observed in the XEDS spectra for cleaned chips, once the surface contamination is removed, the calcium and the zinc no longer appear.

There is more to report about the finding of elemental aluminum but I'll stop here for now.

Millette obviously tested chosen chips which were visually similar and attracted to a magnet but by no means a match for the highlighted chips referred to in the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
I would nominate this but I know how that goes. IMO, this is as concise and straightforward a response to the Millette study as I've read on here.

I try to stay out of these highly technical threads, but I do read them, and I have been curious about the specific arguments against Millette. In sum, it's disheartening that this is where we are all these years later.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 08:48 AM   #3946
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I would nominate this but I know how that goes. IMO, this is as concise and straightforward a response to the Millette study as I've read on here.

What did you think of Sunstealer's response to the post you quoted?
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 08:51 AM   #3947
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
For the moment, I am only going to address the most glaring and most relevant responses you made. The more 'red herring-like' issues like the resistivity test have little bearing on the proof that Millette analyzed a different material than Dr. Harrit et al.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have repeatedly posted my disagreement about whether or not Millette's a-d chip selections were a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Do you agree that chips a, b, c and d in the above diagram are the same material?"
I believe chips a, b, c and d from Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper are of similar chemical makeup but that they are not a match for Millette's selected chips a, b, c and d.

For the uninitiated, the a, b, c and d references only share agreement with the Millette report in so far as they relate to the 9/11 geographical locations from which they were sampled.


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Millette claims that the material he analyzed is primer paint but he could not match his chip selections to any specific primer paint used on the WTC steel.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Irrelevant - paint is paint is paint. We've said this all along. Even if we could not determine the specific paint that Harrit analysed that does not detract from the fact he found paint and not thermite."
I am not in disagreement with Millette that he found selected steel primer paint chips from his sample pile.

When MEK-soaked, Millette's chips softened as one would expect.

BUT.

In the 2009 Bentham paper, the chip which underwent a 55 hour MEK-soaking, did not soften.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Different types of paint will behave differently when soaked in MEK. . . It's a pointless test."
Is not the critical point here that Millette's MEK-soaked sample DID NOT PHYSICALLY BEHAVE LIKE THE MEK-SOAKED SAMPLE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO MATCH?

Soft vs hard represents a very significant variation.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"The EDX data Millette supplied do not show any great detail. We know that chips a-d contain strontium because we have a more detailed EDX spectrum from one of the chips:
It is important to note the very serious misrepresentation you are making here. Your so-called revelation of strontium is a false interpretation.

The EDX spectrum above is a result of jacking up the gain from a 10 keV range to 20 keV.

You will notice that the Fe, Al, Si signals are clipping as a result and that the background noise has been correspondingly elevated.

The Sr (strontium) peaks are non-existent as that is only noise and barely perceptible at that. They are only marked on the display because that is where they would have occurred IF they had been present.

You really reveal your lack of scientific integrity when you attempt such blatant dishonesty. It is particularly of concern because this was pointed out to you much earlier is this thread.

I'll respond further when I have more time to waste on you.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 09:08 AM   #3948
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
For the moment, I am only going to address the most glaring and most relevant responses you made. The more 'red herring-like' issues like the resistivity test have little bearing on the proof that Millette analyzed a different material than Dr. Harrit et al.
The resistivity test was YOUR red herring. To acknowledge that fact will be taken as conceding you were wrong to claim it as a selection factor.
__________________
"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 8th February 2014, 09:10 AM   #3949
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I think it's a hoot that you folks insist on using spectral analysis of paint chips and other particulate matter with your FEA's and EDX's and all that crap when anybody with a functioning brain knows there was no controlled demolition of ANY kind.

Please tell me (MM) this is just a hobby of some kind. You don't actually believe you'll prove inside jobby job, do you?
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 8th February 2014, 09:47 AM   #3950
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I think it's a hoot that you folks insist on using spectral analysis of paint chips and other particulate matter with your FEA's and EDX's and all that crap when anybody with a functioning brain knows there was no controlled demolition of ANY kind.

Please tell me (MM) this is just a hobby of some kind. You don't actually believe you'll prove inside jobby job, do you?
^This.

If it actually happened there'd be a hell of a lot more evidence for it than a bit of bloody dust.
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 8th February 2014, 10:01 AM   #3951
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I am not in disagreement with Millette that he found selected steel primer paint chips from his sample pile.
Since you can't persuasively distinguish Millette's selection criteria from Harrit et al.'s, we could stop right there.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
When MEK-soaked, Millette's chips softened as one would expect.

BUT.

In the 2009 Bentham paper, the chip which underwent a 55 hour MEK-soaking, did not soften.
Harrit et al. report, "The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution." Millette reports, "Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within."

If this is among your strongest arguments that Millette's chips are fundamentally different from Harrit et al.'s four chips, one shudders to imagine your weakest ones. But Harrit et al.'s paper is infirmed either way.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 11:08 AM   #3952
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Soon I will be releasing some new information about the "different chips" argument. Stay tuned as I put the finishing touches on my YouTube epilogue.
Thank you for doing these videos, Chris - they're great. I'm currently transcribing the long edit that cjnewson88 did of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdi27dtycU

I've got up to the middle of video 11 - about 22,000 words so far!
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 11:53 AM   #3953
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
What did you think of Sunstealer's response to the post you quoted?
Good stuff. This is one of the more productive threads I've seen here in awhile.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 12:18 PM   #3954
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Good stuff. This is one of the more productive threads I've seen here in awhile.

Do you know, I think I agree.

I'm learning a lot about the flogging of dead microscopic horses.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 12:59 PM   #3955
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Ironically, no thermite was used on 911. Jones and Harrit's fraud is seen in their paper, whereas Millette's paper is straight science. Not surprising 911 truth has to attack Millette's paper since is found no thermite, can the same people can't see Jones and Harrit did not prove they found thermite.

There is nothing technical about Jones and Harrit's paper. It is clear they have to quibble about the chips they loosely claim to be thermite. Two chips with more energy than thermite and two chips with less energy. Jones makes up an excuse the binder adds energy, but why does the same binder add less energy?

Funny paper, it only takes reading comprehension to see the fraud.

But the big red flag of woo for thermite. No evidence of damage to any steel by thermite. Kind of makes the thermite studies a waste of time; add that to the USGS study and the study for the bank building, we end up with no thermite.

It is interesting to see 911 truth try to do chemistry, and fail to see Jones is a fraud on thermite.

Why is the DSC different. Not thermite?
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 8th February 2014, 02:34 PM   #3956
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Harrit et al tested the electrical resistivity of steel primer paint and highlighted red chip material. They found the red chip material had very low resistance and that steel primer paints had relatively high resistance.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"No they did not. You have been repeatedly told by several people here that this is not true.

You dishonestly dodge the question when asked on it.

You won't because you know he's caught you lying.

What Harrit et al did is quote resistivity data from a paper:
I will concede that the 2009 Bentham paper only reported actual measurement of the resistivity of the red chip material.

They did not publish the resistivity measurements for paint as that data was already published as a tabulated reference.

I regret any misunderstanding on this point and it was never my intention to lie. My focus was on the red chip material and not the readily available paint data.

This in no way means that the comparison data for the resistivity of steel primer paints was erroneous.

If you can find any contradictory data regarding the resistivity of Tnemec or LeClede steel primer paints please present it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit et al
"We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter in order to compare with ordinary paints"
Originally Posted by Dr. Jones
"Also, we checked the electrical resistivity of several paints consistently orders of magnitude higher than that of the red material. We reported the resistivity of the red material in our paper, page 27 in the Journal. Millette did not report any electrical resistivity measurements. This measurement is rather easy to do so I was surprised when he failed to do this straightforward test. There is a lot of red material of various types in the WTC dust, so one must be careful to make sure it is the same as what we studied, and not some other material."
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
R.I.P. "Btw, I've just tried to measure the resistivity of my Laclede imitation chip, using simple two probe method (two strips of silver paste were first applied to make good contacts, their distance was ca 3 mm). But, for my multimeter Agilent U1242A, the resistance is too high (not measurable).
Ivan's finding is further evidence that the red chip material highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper was not LeClede steel primer paint.

My correction does not change any of the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper which is why I consider it a 'red herring'.

The resistivity measurement was a useful but unnecessary aid in selecting candidate red chip material.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 8th February 2014 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Found additional relevant information.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th February 2014, 02:45 PM   #3957
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I will concede that the 2009 Bentham paper only reported actual measurement of the resistivity of the red chip material.

They did not publish the resistivity measurements for paint as that data was already published as a tabulated reference.

I regret any misunderstanding on this point and it was never my intention to lie. My focus was on the red chip material and not the readily available paint data.

This in no way means that the comparison data for the resistivity of steel primer paints was erroneous.

If you can find any contradictory data regarding the resistivity of Tnemec or LeClede steel primer paints please present it.



This does not change any of the findings of the 2009 Bentham paper which is why I consider it a 'red herring'.

The resistivity measurement was a useful but unnecessary aid in selecting candidate red chip material.

MM
Thank goodness we can now get past this.

MM: I applaud your honestly in this concession.
I hope we see more of this moving on. There's no reason for hostility, this is science.

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 8th February 2014 at 03:06 PM. Reason: spelling
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 8th February 2014, 03:01 PM   #3958
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Do you agree that chips a, b, c and d in the above diagram are the same material?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I believe chips a, b, c and d from Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper are of similar chemical makeup but that they are not a match for Millette's selected chips a, b, c and d.
MM
Finally you answered the question.

Can you now tell us why you think they don't match? Let's just use the EDX spectrums for now.

Can you do this?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2014, 06:52 AM   #3959
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Thank you for doing these videos, Chris - they're great. I'm currently transcribing the long edit that cjnewson88 did of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdi27dtycU

I've got up to the middle of video 11 - about 22,000 words so far!
Wow, now that's a project! Thanks for letting me know.
Chris
__________________
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 9th February 2014, 07:46 AM   #3960
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi gang,
We all know the DSC images comparing and superimposing known nanothermite to the red-grey chips, how they are off by over 100 degrees C and off by a factor of two to five re energy release. I've been looking for other DSC images of paint, kaolin/expoxy, organic compounds, etc to see if there are any materials whose exothermic curve looks at all similar to these DSC images we already know (in temperature range and energy release). Can anyone help in this research?
__________________
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
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 02:57 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.