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 15th February 2014, 04:58 PM   #4041
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Hmm..where to start.

As you must be able to clearly see Chris, Sunstealer stated proof of Sr (strontium), by dishonestly misrepresenting Dr. Harrit's XEDS data and the context in which Dr. Harrit presented it.
No I've not misrepresented the data as you will see from post on the topic.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Looking at the larger context, using the same 9/11 blogger submission by Dr. Jones you refer to, that contained Dr. Ferrer's remarks, Dr. Jones also remarked that nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Sr or Pb (lead).
And his analysis most likely wouldn't. Millette conducted EDX on the surface of clean chips. The whole point of using a chromate inhibitor is that over time the compound breaks down into it's constituent ions so that the chromium ion migrates to the surface of the substrate (steel) thereby increasing it's resistance to corrosion and the strontium ion is lost to the surroundings. This process is one of the reasons why we are moving away from such compounds with regards to corrosion protection because the sacrificed ion enters the atmosphere. Lead Chromate was very popular but has mostly been phased out because the mechanism introduces Lead to the environment.

Oystein comprehensively showed through the use of the composition of LaClede and his subsequent Monte-Carlo simulations that Strontium would not be picked up at the same resolution even though the element was used in the data.

Lastly, why is Jones exhorting the presence of Lead as some sort of gotcha when there is no reason for thermite to contain Lead? Ask Jones why thermite should contain Pb or any one of the substances that are not Fe2O3 and Al observed in the paper he helped produce. As I've shown Pb is a common constituent of older paints. Saying, "ah ha! We observed Lead but you didn't so nah, nah nah" is a silly response because it doesn't tell anybody why Pb should be observed. In Harrit et al, many other elements are observed, but none of them are consistent with thermite.

You should be asking these questions.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
This is particularly telling because Sunstealer has claimed repeatedly that Millette's use of TEM results in superior conclusive results to those obtained by Dr. Harrit's use of XEDS.
Once again you've either misconstrued my claim or misunderstood the TEM data that Millette has produced.

Millette's TEM data is primarily used to analyse particles after the sample has been subjected to low temperature ashing in order to separate out constituent particles from the carbon matrix. The temperature used was 400°C and carried out for times between 30 minutes and 1 hour. Strontium Chromate is not stable at that temperature and will therefore degrade. So the likelihood of any particles remaining after this is very low.

The reason for saying that TEM is a superior method is because Millette uses TEM-SAED analysis. Selected Area Electron Diffraction produces crystallographic information which is specific to the sample analysed and therefore analyses the structure of the material. This technique means you can identify exactly what the material is in this case. That is why it is superior to any of the techniques presented in Harrit et al.

Millette identifies the particles present in the ashed chip specimen.

MM then goes on to try to illustrate his point by quoting me:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
To illustrate my point;
Quote:
"1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)

Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive."

"It's interesting that no truther has dared to perform any analysis of Dr Millette's preliminary results- either agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusions. None of them is analysing the FTIR or EM-SAED data. It could be total nonsense for all a truther knows."

"…There is absolutely no point in heating samples to satisfy your need for microspheres when you totally ignore the FTIR and TEM-SAED results…"

"There is absolutely no point in heating a sample when you already know what the material is due to performing low temperature ashing and TEM-SAED on the particles."
Note how every time I refer to SAED and not just TEM analysis. I do not refer to any other technique that is available using TEM analysis. I specifically refer to SAED and that technique is applied to particles post ashing in Millette's study. Therefore I am obviously refering to the particles, namely hexagonal platelets and rhombohedral iron oxides seen in both Harrit et al and Millette's progress report.

It's obvious that you are trying to twist what I have consistently stated before.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now, apparently for Sunstealer, XEDS noise (Harrit's data) is superior to TEM (Millette's data) when it suits what he wishes to believe (a finding of LeClede steel primer paint).
Nope, as shown above.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If Sunstealer's claim that Millette's chips are a match for Dr. Harrit's chips is true, why does he present this paradox where he accepts a belief that Sr is shown in Dr. Harrit's supposedly inferior XEDS noise data but is not at all evident in Millette's supposedly superior TEM data?????
Strawman. I've explained why above.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dr. Ferrer's TEM data (detection of Sr and Cr) contradicts Millette's TEM data (no detection of any Sr or Cr).
No it doesn't as I've shown above.

What we actually have is you inferring that there is a split between Harrit and Jones/Farrer regarding the presence of Sr and Cr in the chips. You are claiming that Harrit says the S, Ca, Cr and Sr peaks in the spectrum are misidentified and therefore background noise based on non-exact wording from Harrit (even though I've shown that SEM-EDX does not support that position) and then you are claiming that Sr and Cr are indeed part of the chips and quoting Farrer/Jones as proof!

There is no reference to the presence of Strontium in the Harrit et al paper. Why not?

You are quoting Farrer as saying it's present through his TEM studies, however, there is no mention in the paper. There are mentions of other elements being present:

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?
Why not Strontium if Farrer has shown it to be true?

Farrer is a co author!

Quote:
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,
Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
So why is there no mention of Strontium?

What's more, and this is the more important part: Why is Strontium found in thermite? What is the purpose of this element?

Farrer, Jones and yourself would have to explain why these elements are present in thermite. Us debunkers know why Strontium would be found in primer paint because it's part of the corrosion inhibitor. It's the same reason why Zinc is found - Strontium chromate and Zinc chromate are added to paint as corrosion inhibitors.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
More and more it becomes increasingly clear that Millette was studying different chips than those observed in the 2009 Bentham paper.
No it doesn't. More and more it shows how desperate you have become in your obsession and more and more it shows that Harrit et al has no idea what they were looking at or they misconstrued the analysis to favour their own deluded theory regarding the terrorist attack on 9/11.
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 15th February 2014, 05:39 PM   #4042
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
And he does as shown in his progress report. The method to obtain red/gray chips was follwed as per the Harrit et al paper. It's only you and other truthers who disagree because the conclusions do not support your wishes.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface.
You can only observe the data that is presented.

In the Harrit et al paper this:



is claimed to be the same as this:



when we know this:



There is absolutely no way that the red layer of the chip in Fig 14 can match the red layer of chips a, b, c, and d as seen in Fig 7. Contamination cannot explain the discrepancy.

When we look at the data obtained from Millette's progress report we can also see that he obtained chips that match the data from Fig 14 and the talk from Jones where he shows us an EDX spectrum from Tnemec red primer paint:



And don't forget that those chips were cleaned.

If we take the claim under Fig 14 that Ca and S are contaminants:
Quote:
Fig. (14). XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.
then we would expect a clean chip to have an EDX spectrum very similar to Fig 7 and nowhere near that of Fig 14.

We don't. This comprehensively shows that Tnemec red primer paint (adhered to steel) is present as chips when separated using the technique identified in Harrit et al.

If we accept that there is contaminant from gypsum wallboard present in Fig 14 then this explanation does not explain the presence of other elements over and above those seen in Fig 7.

The very fact that the authors observe Zn and Cr as being present in some of their chips indicates that the corrosion inhibitor Zinc Chromate ZnCrO4 is likely present given that we know that this is a constituent of Tnemec red primer paint.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The EDX spectrum taken from the red chip with the contaminated surface will show the same EDX spectrum as the cross-sectioned red chip with the difference being, it will also include the contaminates.
No it won't as I have shown above. The very fact that this chip was not examined using the same method as chips a-d in the same paper shows a lack of consistency which should have at minimum been picked up upon review.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Are you also suggesting that Dr. Harrit's cleaned red chip (fractured) would have behaved like Millette's and softened in MEK?
Which chip are you referring to? Read the Millette report and post the chip notation for the one that you are referring to.
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 15th February 2014, 07:05 PM   #4043
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It was Dr. Harrit, an expert in nano science who stated;
Appeals to authority do no wash here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium."
But that does not mean that those elements were not detected by the SEM. It's only you that wishes to twist the meaning and imply that the presence of those elements is false.

I've shown in previous posts why the idea that these elements have been falsely identified by the equipment is nonsense. If SEM-EDX was so inaccurate then we'd expect to see a whole host of elements present in that part of the spectrum and the user would have to then go through a hugely time consuming process of elimination in order to remove falsely identified elements.

Anyone who uses SEM-EDX would have to do this. It would mean that the technique would be unreliable and therefore not be used in the way we see it used today.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You can put as much spin as you like on this but Dr. Harrit's meaning is crystal clear.
No it's not as I have shown.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Noise is noise.
Nice try, but again, as I have explained in the more technical post above, that this is not true.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If a signal's amplitude matches that of the noise that it is embedded in, for all intents and purposes, it is unreadable or of no significance.
Again I've shown that this is not true and once more the peaks for S, Ca and Cr are quite clear and backed by the statistical analysis that the EDX software uses.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I like to keep things as simple as possible so the world may understand and you obviously like to keep things complicated so the world will take your word for it.
Wrong once again. The scanning electron microscope is a complicated piece of machinery. In order to use one you have to understand how it works. That understanding is taught in every Materials Science/Metallurgy degree as well as others. SEM operators also have to understand the workings even if they have never undergone a degree in another subject.

Once computerisation came in then a SEM operator had to learn an entirely new way of operating the machine because it became far more software orientated. This added degree of complexity required additional training, however, the underlying physics of the machine hasn't changed.

It's this underlying physics, regarding the EDX detection apparatus and how it works, is what I have explained. I've done this as best I could regarding background noise or Bremsstrahlung and the identification of peaks associated with individual elements as seen in the EDX spectrum.

I've also given references to articles explaining this.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Sunstealer, you have hand waved the issue of noise, the fact that Dr. Millette using superior TEM methodology found no Sr so you grasp at Dr. Farrer's reference to the same, ignore the effect of surface contamination, ignore volumes of independent data supporting proof of nanothermite etc etc.
All answered in previous posts.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
This all old ground that you doggedly insist you've answered to.
And I have. Extensively.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The subject of his thread is Dr. Millette's WTC Dust Study reported on Feb.29, 2012.
It is. I wish that somehow you'd actually read his report and digest his analysis and data.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The very important point under dispute is; did Dr. Millette's WTC Dust Study actually examine sample material that matched the highlighted red chip material in the 2009 Bentham paper?
And the answer to that is yes. Yes he did.

Dr Millette has provided a progress report detailing his data and findings. The only person who is not discussing his data is you.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Sunstealer, Oystein and Kminek all believe the red chip material studied by Dr. Millette was steel primer paint.
As does Dr Millette:
Quote:
Conclusions

The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
Millette consistently refers to the presence of kaolin in his samples and shows that these kaolin platelets are identical to those observed in Harrit et al.

He also documents that kaolin is consistent with the identification of paint.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And you all believe that Dr. Millette was indeed investigating material that was a match for that highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper.
Of course. He has documented as such. That is easy to see.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There were two brands of steel primer paint known to have been used at the WTC, Tnemec and LeClede.
Yes.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Using methods which Sunstealer has previously stated were superior to those used by Dr. Harrit et al, Dr. Millette found that his test material was not a chemical match for any of the listed 177 listed formulations for Tnemec steel primer paint.
As you well know Millette did not have the composition of LaClede red joist paint when he made that observation.

Secondly the fact that an exact match for a specific composition of paint, whether, primer paint or other, does not nullify his findings.

He found paint, not thermite. Any other consideration is moot. The fact that in depth analysis by Oystein using both Tnemec red and LaClede formulations show excellent correlations for the EDX spectra observed has been ignored by you and other truthers.

The Harrit paper was debunked within weeks of it's laughable publication. It's impact on the scientific community has been zero.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
That is argument alone, that if Sunstealer is right about Dr. Harrit et al studying Tnemec steel primer paint, than Dr. Millette was not studying a 'matching' material.
No as shown repeatedly above.

Both studies extracted Tnemec red primer paint from the dust as shown by the comparison of EDX spectra seen above.

Millette was tasked with matching his chips with chips a-d in Harrit et al. Chips a-d in Harrit et al were not Tnemec red.

Millette only had instruction to identify chips corresponding to chips a-d in Harrit et as per the magnet extraction method and matching the EDX spectrum for the red layer in Fig 7. The fact he does this and then comprehensively shows that his SEM images match those in Harrit confirms that he had the same material. Here is the evidence:



Evidence that you ignore even though it's been presented time after time.

All of the data matches.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In short, whatever the material was that Dr. Millette was testing, it was not a match for Tnemec of LeClede steel primer paint.
Dr Millette, as far as I'm aware, never had the information regarding Laclede red primer paint. Al of his data for the chips he matched to chips a-d in Harrit et al are excellent matches for Laclede red joist primer paint. Oysteins extensive work comparing the expected EDX spectrum for the known composition of Laclede along with the fact that Millette identified the carbon based binder material as epoxy along with kaolin points toward Laclede being the material analysed.

Even if he did and he had ruled it out it doesn't mean that his finding show that the material in Harrit et al was not thermite.

Millette identifies a material consistent with a red paint applied to steel. That material consists of an epoxy containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin particles just as one would expect from LaClede red joist primer paint because the same constituents are specified as the composition for such paint.



Millette does not identify thermite.

You can go to the ends of the earth, but you will still see that Millette does not conclude that the material separated from the dust, using the exact same method that Harrit et al used, is thermite.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And if Dr. Millette was wrong about the primer paint not-matching, as Sunstealer, Oystein and Kminek insist, than obviously Dr. Millette was not studyng 'matching chips'.
Your logic is faulty as we've all shown.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Additionally Sunstealer, you ignore the further evidence regarding the disparate behaviour between Dr. Millette's red material when soaked in MEK and Dr. Harrit's red material when soaked in MEK.
Discussed above, shown to be incorrect and dismissed.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You also refuse to acknowledge the explanation given by Dr. Harrit et al for differences between the XEDS spectrum for a contaminated red chip surface and one that has been cleanly cross-sectioned.
Again, discussed above and shown to have been answered in detail once again. Stop throwing up the same old, tired and debunked nonsense.

It's inanely tiresome to have to repeat the same information over and over when you explicitly state or quote someone when the reasons why you are incorrect have been given upteen times before.

I'll try to address the rest of your post when I have time. I'm off on holiday now so don't expect any reply. I'll try and deal with the rest of it in the future.
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 16th February 2014, 07:32 AM   #4044
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Dr. Farrer
"I have always shown the additional data to those that have requested it.
I have absolutely nothing to hide with the data that was collected for this paper."

Thank you for this quote, MM. I have repeatedly asked Dr Farrer to release all the TEM data and he has refused. I even asked him not to give it to me personally (since I am not a scientist) but perhaps just post it on a blog or somewhere for all to see.

BTW the link to this quote is not functioning, but I still appreciate the quote.

As for my "inneundo" etc, another way of framing my recent posts is that I'm putting out "teasers" for my upcoming YouTube video. It's true that I am witholding information for awhile longer, but this information will be in my next video.
__________________
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 16th February 2014, 08:16 AM   #4045
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post

BTW the link to this quote is not functioning, but I still appreciate the quote.
The quote is from here:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...s-is-like.html


Quote:
A couple of other points I'd like to make. To include everything in this paper would have been unreasonable. One of the peer-reviewers even warned us that the paper was too long and that we were trying to include too much data in an earlier version of the paper, so we cut it way down. Unfortunately this will always raise questions and criticisms in a paper with a controversial topic or conclusions. I have always shown the additional data to those that have requested it. I have absolutely nothing to hide with the data that was collected for this paper.
__________________
"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 16th February 2014, 08:22 AM   #4046
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
"nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Strontium (Sr)"

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"And his Millette's analysis most likely wouldn't….Oystein comprehensively showed through the use of the composition of LaClede and his subsequent Monte-Carlo simulations that Strontium would not be picked up at the same resolution even though the element was used in the data."
I believe the operative words are "picked up at the same resolution" vs zero picked up.

Combined with the comment;
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
OK but Jim Millette specifically said to me, unequivocally, NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE. It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it. I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede...
Of course you would rather have us believe that you and Oystein know far more about the subject from your armchair amateur perspectives than Dr. Millette working in his lab with actual 9/11 WTC dust.

As I have pointed out, if Millette's chips are LeClede primer paint and Dr. Harrit's chips are LeClede primer paint, there should be a comparable chemical match.
Millette could not make such a connection.


Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Millette's TEM data is primarily used to analyse particles after the sample has been subjected to low temperature ashing in order to separate out constituent particles from the carbon matrix…So the likelihood of any particles remaining after this is very low."
Originally Posted by Dr. Millette
"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."
capitalization was Chris Mohr's
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it.

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"
Since this thread is about Dr. Millette's analysis and not your armchair theorizing, I have to defer to what he had to say and not what you want us to believe Sunstealer.

"In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper."

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"And he does as shown in his progress report. The method to obtain red/gray chips was follwed as per the Harrit et al paper. It's only you and other truthers who disagree because the conclusions do not support your wishes."
Well your wishes are certainly obvious.

Yes Millette followed, but only as far as it suited his needs, and his wishes.

You continue to accept Millette's findings when they support your wishes and discount them when they reject your fervent beliefs.

"And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface."

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"You can only observe the data that is presented.

In the Harrit et al paper this:[Fig.7] is claimed to be the same as this: [Fig.14]."
More misrepresentation on your part.

You do know what "the same as" means, do you not?

Dr. Harrit et al in their paper make it perfectly clear that those two figures are not the same and they explain why.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"There is absolutely no way that the red layer of the chip in Fig 14 can match the red layer of chips a, b, c, and d as seen in Fig 7. Contamination cannot explain the discrepancy.

When we look at the data obtained from Millette's progress report we can also see that he obtained chips that match the data from Fig 14 and the talk from Jones where he shows us an EDX spectrum from Tnemec red primer paint:

And don't forget that those chips were cleaned."
We can?

I am not sure what you are trying to show us here.

Originally Posted by Dr. Millette
From Results; "The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca."
The spectrums you cite list elements that are not mentioned in Millette's red layer RESULTS.

The elements Na, Zn, Mg, S, and K are shown but he does not list them as red layer RESULTS.?

Surprisingly, he mentions Ti but the spectrum you chose to cite does not show that at all.

One thing about the 2009 Bentham paper, is that it is not difficult to correlate their graphics with their text.

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 16th February 2014, 10:26 AM   #4047
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"nowhere in Millette's report is there any finding of Strontium (Sr)"



I believe the operative words are "picked up at the same resolution" vs zero picked up.

Combined with the comment;


Of course you would rather have us believe that you and Oystein know far more about the subject from your armchair amateur perspectives than Dr. Millette working in his lab with actual 9/11 WTC dust.

As I have pointed out, if Millette's chips are LeClede primer paint and Dr. Harrit's chips are LeClede primer paint, there should be a comparable chemical match.
Millette could not make such a connection.





capitalization was Chris Mohr's


Since this thread is about Dr. Millette's analysis and not your armchair theorizing, I have to defer to what he had to say and not what you want us to believe Sunstealer.

"In order to have any legitimacy, Millette's investigation required his test chips be a match for those highlighted in the 2009 Bentham paper."



Well your wishes are certainly obvious.

Yes Millette followed, but only as far as it suited his needs, and his wishes.

You continue to accept Millette's findings when they support your wishes and discount them when they reject your fervent beliefs.

"And you are comparing the EDX spectrum from the surface of a red chip soaked in MEK to the EDX spectrum of a red chip which has been cross-sectioned to expose an uncontaminated inner surface."



More misrepresentation on your part.

You do know what "the same as" means, do you not?

Dr. Harrit et al in their paper make it perfectly clear that those two figures are not the same and they explain why.



We can?

I am not sure what you are trying to show us here.



The spectrums you cite list elements that are not mentioned in Millette's red layer RESULTS.

The elements Na, Zn, Mg, S, and K are shown but he does not list them as red layer RESULTS.?

Surprisingly, he mentions Ti but the spectrum you chose to cite does not show that at all.

One thing about the 2009 Bentham paper, is that it is not difficult to correlate their graphics with their text.

MM
MM, as you seem to be the main spokes person for Harrit et al, why don't you ask them to match Millette's chips? They must have lots of them because they didn't go through the DSC and they obviously put them to one side.

Surely this would solve the problem of identification ?
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 16th February 2014, 11:55 AM   #4048
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
MM, as you seem to be the main spokes person for Harrit et al, why don't you ask them to match Millette's chips? They must have lots of them because they didn't go through the DSC and they obviously put them to one side.

Surely this would solve the problem of identification ?
Why should they officially recognize someone who promised to get his research published 2 years ago and has not followed up?

I have to agree with Sunstealer in that I believe Millette selected chips which were likely contaminated paint.

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 16th February 2014, 12:07 PM   #4049
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why should they officially recognize someone who promised to get his research published 2 years ago and has not followed up?

I have to agree with Sunstealer in that I believe Millette selected chips which were likely contaminated paint.

MM
So your are speaking on their behalf ?

Why can't they speak for themselves ?
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 16th February 2014, 01:30 PM   #4050
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
So your are speaking on their behalf ?

Why can't they speak for themselves ?
Because they're cowards, like all truthers like them.
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 16th February 2014, 03:07 PM   #4051
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.



Originally Posted by Millette report:
"TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 20 and 21). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).”
There was no calcium Ca found in the clean cross-sectioned red material shown in Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.





Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit from WHY ARE THE RED/GRAY CHIPS NOT PRIMER PAINT
"Left Figure 7 in Harrit et al.1 [2009 Bentham paper], [shows frame (a) at 10 keV]

Right: The same spectrum as in [Figure 7 frame (a)] with intensity (vertical) and horizontal scales expanded [20 keV]. Minute signals in level with the noise are observed from sulfur, calcium, chromium and strontium."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"But that does not mean that those elements were not detected by the SEM. It's only you that wishes to twist the meaning and imply that the presence of those elements is false.

I've shown in previous posts why the idea that these elements have been falsely identified by the equipment is nonsense. If SEM-EDX was so inaccurate then we'd expect to see a whole host of elements present in that part of the spectrum and the user would have to then go through a hugely time consuming process of elimination in order to remove falsely identified elements."
Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Using methods which Sunstealer has previously stated were superior to those used by Dr. Harrit et al, Dr. Millette found that his test material was not a chemical match for any of the listed 177 listed formulations for Tnemec steel primer paint."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"As you well know Millette did not have the composition of LaClede red joist paint when he made that observation."
My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.

Originally Posted by Dr. Millette
"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."
capitalization was Chris Mohr's
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it."

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"
No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 16th February 2014 at 03:09 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 16th February 2014, 03:48 PM   #4052
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
MM, you are an anonymous truther who claims to be speaking on behalf of Harrit et al.

The 'evidence' you claim to be presenting is BS. Why don't you compare Millette's work against the Bentham paper and explain why the chips are different ?

Sunstealer is managing to do this and you just ignore it.
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 16th February 2014, 03:56 PM   #4053
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9536/d5ih.png
Wrong! Sample c shows signals for Ca and S which were even labelled, sample d shows a unlabelled signal for Cr.

Quote:
Note: Tnemec steel primer paint only has aluminum bound to calcium.

Tnemec also contains zinc.
Samples a to d are not Tnemec pigment! This is quite obvious if you compare the spectra to the recipe for Tnemec.

Quote:
Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.
The Sr L peaks appear at 1.58 - 2.20 keV and therefore masked by the Al and Si peak.

Quote:
Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.
Millette identified three components of the LaClede primer paint - iron oxide, kaolinite and epoxy resin, he did not identify the crucial component of thermite - elemental aluminum.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th February 2014, 04:20 PM   #4054
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM I assure you I am reading very carefully. To clarify, Millette did not want to assert one way or the other whether he was looking at LaClede unless he could find a known sample of the unburned, undamaged product. He's very conservative in what he says. An international search through paint samples of forensic labs and our attempts to get LaClede have turned up nothing. He is confident he has some kind of kaolinite-epoxy paint and not thermite, and he is confident he has a match for the red-grey chips in spite of Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide any of his own samples for this project. Sunstealer has some good-sounding explanations for why Millette did not find the Strontium Chromate. Very small amounts of SrCr are much less important to me than the fact that Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan never found significant elemental aluminum in the unignited chips. It's a little like claiming you found water when there are no hydrogen atoms in the EDX. But I will most certainly acknowledge the SrCr discrepancy, report on Sunstealer's explanation as to why this might be, and let the reader decide what importance this has.
__________________
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 17th February 2014, 05:01 AM   #4055
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9536/d5ih.png



There was no calcium Ca found in the clean cross-sectioned red material shown in Fig.7 of the 2009 Bentham paper.

Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.




http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4941/7iic.png



Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.




My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.


capitalization was Chris Mohr's


No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.

MM

The horse has died and has been beaten so long we are now analyzing the dust of the dead horse.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2014, 05:17 AM   #4056
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.

Please take note that once cleaned and cross-sectioned, the now uncontaminated surface reveals a more accurate XEDS spectrum for the red material's surface.

Gone are; Zn, S, Ca, and Cr.

http://imageshack.us/a/img163/9536/d5ih.png
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"Wrong! Sample c shows signals for Ca and S which were even labelled, sample d shows a unlabelled signal for Cr."
The anomaly of some signals at noise level in one sample means nothing.

The TEM is used to clear up this kind of disagreement and again the TEM for Harrit´s team has confirmed strontium and chromium in tiny amounts and also ruled out calcium, titanium and zinc.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Note: Tnemec steel primer paint 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.

http://imageshack.com/a/img62/4941/7iic.png"
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"Samples a to d are not Tnemec pigment! This is quite obvious if you compare the spectra to the recipe for Tnemec."
Agreed!

But equally obvious is the fact that the MEK chip is also not Tnemec because it does not have any zinc or calcium once it has been cleaned up in the MEK!*

It also has elemental aluminum!


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why do you persist in ignoring what your eyes are showing you Sunstealer?

Not only is the gain in right Figure 7 frame (a) pushed to the point where substantial noise is elevated, the signals for C, O, Fe, Al, and Si are pushed to the point that they are 'clipping' and no longer accurately proportional in amplitude to each other as easily observed in the left Figure 7 frame (a) at 10 keV.

In the normal 10 keV display for frame (a), the elements at the level of noise are no longer revealed.

Gone are; S, Ca, Cr, and that lowest of all the noise amplitudes, Sr.
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"The Sr L peaks appear at 1.58 - 2.20 keV and therefore masked by the Al and Si peak."
You can imagine anything you like but the evidence is not there to support you.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
My statement explicitly referred to Tnemec steel primer paint formulations used at the WTC.

Whether Millette knew about the LeClede formulation at that time is irrelevant.

Since you again bring up the other possible paint, LeClede steel primer paint used on the joists, must I remind you that during Millette's investigation, he did explore the possibility of the LeClede formulation matching his findings.
Originally Posted by Dr. Millette
"NO STRONTIUM CHROMATE."
capitalization was Chris Mohr's
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"It was clear to me that he looked and he did not find it."

I wouldn't bet my nuts on it being LaClede…"
No means NO Sunstealer.

I do hope Chris is paying careful attention before he embarrasses himself by using you as an expert in his upcoming video.

It is Chris Mohr that the world will laugh at and not some anonymous poser in a public forum.
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
"Millette identified three components of the LaClede primer paint - iron oxide, kaolinite and epoxy resin, he did not identify the crucial component of thermite - elemental aluminum."
Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite".

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 17th February 2014, 07:52 AM   #4057
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Look Before You Leap Chris

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM I assure you I am reading very carefully.

To clarify, Millette did not want to assert one way or the other whether he was looking at LaClede unless he could find a known sample of the unburned, undamaged product. He's very conservative in what he says. An international search through paint samples of forensic labs and our attempts to get LaClede have turned up nothing.

He is confident he has some kind of kaolinite-epoxy paint and not thermite, and he is confident he has a match for the red-grey chips in spite of Kevin Ryan's refusal to provide any of his own samples for this project."
Finding some paint chips in the 9/11 WTC dust has little meaning. Millette might as well have said he found salt in the ocean.

As you have previously admitted, Kevin Ryan informed you before Millette´s study was initiated that both paint chips and thermite chips would be readily found in the dust.

And you also revealed that Kevin Ryan told you that it is important to confirm they are the right chips by igniting them. A simple, easy to perform test that Millette insists he does not need to do and refuses to perform. For the thousand bucks we contributed, surely he could have indulged us such a small request.

Your confidence that Millette analyzed the right chips means nothing in light of his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Sunstealer has some good-sounding explanations for why Millette did not find the Strontium Chromate."
Sunstealer makes "good sounding" but meaningless statements about the possibility of the XEDS not reading the elements he WANTS to be there.

Millette himself has checked with TEM, which is better at reading faint signals, and told you they are simply not there.

Please rely on your experience as an investigative journalist (and not your bias as an anti-9/11 truther), to figure out if you should rely on Dr. Millette or some anonymous person on an internet forum.

You would never see a story in the Washington Post giving unsupported weight to the words of an anonymous Internet source over the words of fully accountable 'named' scientists.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Very small amounts of SrCr are much less important to me than the fact that Jones/Harrit/Farrer/Ryan never found significant elemental aluminum in the unignited chips. It's a little like claiming you found water when there are no hydrogen atoms in the EDX.

But I will most certainly acknowledge the SrCr discrepancy, report on Sunstealer's explanation as to why this might be, and let the reader decide what importance this has."
Harrit´s MEK test rules out kaolin and confirms aluminum.

That is why Sunstealer has been so desperate to claim the MEK chip is Tnemec paint and not the same as the other chips.

Tnemec has aluminum and calcium bound together which would refute Dr. Harrit's claim if Sunstealer can prove the chip is Tnemec.

Sunstealer's problem is that although the uncleaned contaminated chip does resemble Tnemec, all the required Tnemec elements are washed away after the chip has been cleaned in MEK.

The zinc and calcium disappear, which rules out Tnemec.

More importantly, it means there is no calcium to bind with aluminum, which confirms what Harrit says: "the chips have elemental aluminum."

Reading the interview with Farrer clearly reveals that he debunked Sunstealer´s armchair Tnemec claims in 2011 and that Sunstealer avoids any acknowledgement. Whatever Sunstealer can't hand wave away with textbook jargon he simply ignores.

Getting back to your claim of no "significant" aluminum Chris.

That is a misguided belief.

The amount is definitely significant if the chips ignite and reduce the iron-oxide into iron rich spheres.

This is why page 19 of Harrit´s paper says; "If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic".

As you know the chips have a DSC spike that is as at least as narrow as a known sample of nanothermite, so the chips do react as vigorously, and as you know they leave behind iron spheres not iron-oxide spheres which confirm a thermite reaction and rule out a conventional combustion.

The spike is the key and not the temperature it occurs at. It has been shown that nanothermite formulations can be fashioned to behave far differently than standard thermite.

In addition, I recently came across this post-publication statement from Dr. Harrit;
http://board.gulli.com/thread/153749.../#post13593325

Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"We do not claim that the red/grey chips are the same material as Tillotson et al. described. Actually, we are pretty sure it is NOT for the same - for reasons given above.

Your statement about activation energies is nonsense. An activation energy is a thermodynamic quantity referring to standard conditions in solution or in the gas phase.

That some people take this lightly is another matter. But to postulate a unique correlation between ignition temperature and activation energy in a two-phase solid reaction is ridiculous.

Well, maybe you can expect a lower ignition temperature the smaller the particles – as observed.

Of course, all samples have a different ignition temperature (Fig. 19), and of course, different preparations with different compositions will have different ignition temperatures.

And what do you mean by “the temperature for the thermite reaction”? You are going to have a very hard time if you try to search the literature for a well-defined ignition temperature of conventional thermite mixtures.

Please, provide a reference next time you come up with such a statement.

Furthermore, in the paper we hypothesize that the organic matrix (plus atmospheric oxygen) is decisive for the low ignition temperature and the overall energy output."
Regarding the finding of aluminum.

Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"TEM wide-field studies aimed at determination of stoichiometric compositions of the red and the grey layers were carried out after publication.

However, the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum in the red material (in the platelets). If money and time permit, the TEM studies may be completed and published.

The spread of the electron beam inside the samples was tested and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to get an idea of the interaction volume of the electron beam within the sample.

To suggest that there is no aluminum in the red layer is ludicrous."
Remember Chris; "There's no fool like an old fool".

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 17th February 2014 at 09:23 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2014, 09:52 AM   #4058
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The anomaly of some signals at noise level in one sample means nothing.
These signals are well above noise level.

Quote:
The TEM is used to clear up this kind of disagreement and again the TEM for Harrit´s team has confirmed strontium and chromium in tiny amounts and also ruled out calcium, titanium and zinc.
Sorry, but where did Harrit oder Jones publish the TEM?

Quote:
But equally obvious is the fact that the MEK chip is also not Tnemec because it does not have any zinc or calcium once it has been cleaned up in the MEK!*
That's wrong, as in the spectrum depicted in Fig. 18 of the Bentham paper a peak for sodium is labelled. The sodium and the zinc signal appear nearly at the same energy, so this might resemble zinc.

Quote:
It also has elemental aluminum!
Harrit's claim that aluminum was seperated from silicon is not backed up by actual evidence. We don't know the elemental distribution of the chip prior soaking.

Quote:
You can imagine anything you like but the evidence is not there to support you.
It's not imagination, it's a fact!

Quote:
Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite".
That's interesting. Where is the data of the nanothermite reference sample that was used to make this claim?
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th February 2014, 11:17 AM   #4059
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
No fool like an old fool? Hey MM, I may have turned 60, but around my birthday I also rode my bicycle to the top of a 14,255' peak! Go easy on the ageism, neither me nor Steve Jones are exactly young ya know.

As for the strontium debate, it looks like Harrit found it at the level of noise (so he thinks he didn't really find it or it was contamination) and Farrer says he did find it in his unreleased TEM. Millette did NOT find it, as I have said, and he released all his data in his preliminary report. So who found it? Finding Strontium Chromate strengthens the argument for LaClede but seems to have no effect on the thermite case. Not finding an unstable compound (Millette) does not seem to have much effect on the question of whether Millette found the right chips.

Yes, Kevin Ryan said there were two kinds of chips: paint and thermite. Wish he had said so in the 2009 paper. We here also agree there are two kinds of chips. Paint and ????
__________________
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 17th February 2014, 11:56 AM   #4060
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Ageism was not my intention.

If it makes you feel any better Chris I am older. And while I doubt I could match you on the mountain climb, I can still drop for 75 pushups.

I did not mean to suggest you "were an old fool". It was a warning to not let other anonymous members turn you into one.

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 17th February 2014, 01:22 PM   #4061
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Here is a comparison between the spectrum for the clean, cross-sectioned a-d chips of Fig.7 from the 2009 Bentham paper
and the spectrum for the uncleaned, uncross-sectioned b chip, Fig. 14 from the 2009 Bentham paper. Both obtained at 10 keV.
Are you suggesting that the chip in figure 14 is the same chip in figure 7 (b)?

Where do you pull that out of?


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Harrit on the other hand found chips with iron-oxide and aluminum aluminates within a red matrix that remains hard after the MEK, which is consistent with a product called "superthermite" "Tnemec".
FTFY.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Sunstealer makes "good, sounding" but meaningless and properly referenced statements about the possibility of the XEDS not reading the elements he WANTS PROVES to be there.
FTFY as well.
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 February 2014, 08:01 AM   #4062
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
The Hypocrisy Behind 'As-Needed' Peer Reviews

Chris, while waiting for Dr. Millette to publish a peer-reviewed paper based on the research he performed over 2 years ago and what represents the basis for this thread, I thought I would visit your site; 235 points http://chrismohr911.com/

What was of particular interest to me were your comments and views regarding the importance of peer-review.

One glaring paragraph really grabbed my attention;

Originally Posted by Chris Mohr
"I hate to bring up the "peer-reviewed" argument again, but here is another example: Bazant's papers were peer-reviewed.

The NIST Report was peer-reviewed four times and re-tested many times thereafter.

"Peer-review" is not just a badge of honor or a club for me to use against my opponents;

it means that the paper has at least enough credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community.


In Bazant's case, some of what he has written has been supplanted by more thorough research by NIST and others, so people on both sides of the argument do believe there are flaws in his work.

But this "missing jolt" rebuttal article (above right)* on the 9/11 Truth link) has no* "peer review" at all, except maybe on some debunker blogger posts!"
bolding is mine

I can only conclude that based on your stated views, Dr. Millette's report "does not have sufficient credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community."

Furthermore, after 2 years of no activity on his part, it is quite apparent that Dr. Millette doesn't really care if his report gets peer-reviewed.

What justification is there for granting Millette's unpublished report greater credence than the published peer-reviewed paper he attempts to discredit?

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 February 2014, 08:33 AM   #4063
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Chris, while waiting for Dr. Millette to publish a peer-reviewed paper based on the research he performed over 2 years ago and what represents the basis for this thread, I thought I would visit your Rick Shaddock's site; 235 points http://chrismohr911.com/
FTFY again. Don't you get tired of being wrong?


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What was of particular interest to me were your comments and views regarding the importance of peer-review.

One glaring paragraph really grabbed my attention;

Originally Posted by Chris Mohr
"I hate to bring up the "peer-reviewed" argument again, but here is another example: Bazant's papers were peer-reviewed.

The NIST Report was peer-reviewed four times and re-tested many times thereafter.

"Peer-review" is not just a badge of honor or a club for me to use against my opponents;

it means that the paper has at least enough credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community.


In Bazant's case, some of what he has written has been supplanted by more thorough research by NIST and others, so people on both sides of the argument do believe there are flaws in his work.

But this "missing jolt" rebuttal article (above right)* on the 9/11 Truth link) has no* "peer review" at all, except maybe on some debunker blogger posts!"
bolding is mine

I can only conclude that based on your stated views, Dr. Millette's report "does not have sufficient credibility to be worthy of consideration by the scientific community."
And you are wrong, again.

From "A implies B" it can not be inferred that "not A implies not B" which is what you are doing here.

From "peer review implies credibility", which is what Chris is saying, it can not be inferred that "no peer review implies no credibility", which is what you are saying.

If your bad logic is key to your epistemology, it's no surprise you're a truther.
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 February 2014, 09:01 AM   #4064
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

What justification is there for granting Millette's unpublished report greater credence than the published peer-reviewed paper he attempts to discredit?

MM
First you need to show that the original has any credit. The scientific community has ignored it (the few that paid attention dismissed it).

A good question would be, why are Harrit et al not doing something to actually get their paper noticed? Instead they stick to conspiracy sites and refuse to release data they say they have. They also refuse to supply material for independent study and have shown no clear way to prove the material studied by others is the same.

It's obvious they don't want others looking more closely at their work.
__________________
"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 18th February 2014, 10:31 AM   #4065
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM busted again! Generally I do not push hard on the peer-review issue. But yes I do give somewhat more credence to peer-reviewed articles. I also look at preliminary reports, white papers, and blog posts and primarily look at whether the science behind their assertions is strong. With Richard Gage I begged him not to call the 2009 thermitic paper "peer reviewed" because I didn't want to debate whether Bentham is peer-reviewed or vanity, why the editor resigned in protest after it was published without her knowledge, the qualifications of all the peer reviewers, etc etc etc. So Richard and I agreed to call it a "scientific paper," which it is, and debate it on its merits.

Obviously, all things being equal, the peer reviewed paper is a higher standard of credibility. But as I said, it only puts it in the ballpark for scientific consideration, it doesn't make it right. Let's say Millette did the peer-reviewed paper and concluded "no thermite." Would that change your mind? Of course not. You would still assert he made the same mistakes you assert now.

I am disappointed that Millette did not complete his peer-reviewed paper. We talked about this every month for over a year. He intended to do it. He used to have an employee who was into this, and whenever there was a "slow day at the office," she and Millette would do the tests we paid him a measly $1000 to do. He enjoyed the work, it fulfilled an intellectual curiosity on his part, and he got a slot to talk about his preliminary report at two Forensics Conventions, where hundreds of colleagues and grad school students in the field praised his work (and not one confronted him on any flaws in his methodology). And BTW grad school students love to one-up their elders, so don't think it's a mob of hero-worshippers. But now, after looking for an intern or employee who is interested in this project, he has come up empty. His international search (with considerable help from us here at JREF) to find a clean sample of LaClede primer on steel came up empty. And his company got more and more successful (possibly in part due to the attention he got from his thermitic preliminary paper??), and he just has less and less time.

Oh well. But on the credibility scale, Millette has (1) more experience (2) two massive informal peer reviews where many more people got to see his work than most papers ever get (3) this is precisely what he specializes in.

When it comes to credibility, I can fight the peer-reviewed fight, I can challenge the credentials of scientists working outside their fields of expertise, etc etc etc. But I'm much more interested in investigating the claims. Iron-rich microspheres? Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead. And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron! I accept the raw data put out by the thermitic paper authors and I find no elemental aluminum. Even Steven Jones has admitted this is a problem, and he has tried to find it twice now: with Farrer's TEM and with a second post-2009 test he organized using a different methodology. Both of his attempts agree with Millette's attempts: no elemental aluminum. Millette's conclusion: therefore no thermite. Jones's conclusion: maybe we just didn't find it, on to more experiments. That's fine. But others have said things I respect much less. Harrit's conclusion: anyone who says no aluminum is making a ridiculous assertion. Other statements I have heard: elemental aluminum is proven by the presence of iron-rich microspheres, which must prove temperatures over 2700 degrees F, which must prove thermite, so the aluminum must be there. I say elemental aluminum is proven by finding elemental aluminum.

You're right, I give some extra credence to peer-reviewed papers, but when all is said and done, neither you nor I are bound to accept the conclusions of a paper just because it is peer-reviewed.
__________________
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 February 2014, 11:00 AM   #4066
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...You're right, I give some extra credence to peer-reviewed papers, but when all is said and done, neither you nor I are bound to accept the conclusions of a paper just because it is peer-reviewed.
Well stated Chris.

The test of a claim is "Is it correct?" or "Is it true?" NOT "Is it peer reviewed?"

And not "Which author has more degrees?"

If a double Doctorate author claims something that is false it remains false - two or more degrees do not outweigh "false".

Conversely if a humble zero degrees person claims some thing that is true the lack of degrees does not make it false.

[/EndRant] >>> and it is one of my favourite "rants"
ozeco41 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 February 2014, 11:08 AM   #4067
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,123
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
....I say elemental aluminum is proven by finding elemental aluminum.
Yup.
__________________
"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 19th February 2014, 12:26 PM   #4068
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"But I'm much more interested in investigating the claims.

Iron-rich microspheres? Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead.

And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!"
I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide….f someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...
Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"I'm grateful to everyone who has spent the time and effort on this. Your experiments, along with the recent one by DaveThomasNMSR, show that the production of metallic spheres are not unusual."
A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

Now moving on to Ivan.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"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 …Yesterday, I asked colleagues from the Department of Conductive Polymers to heat my “fine collection” of red/gray chips in their oven … They kindly heated my chips up to 700 degrees (heating rate 10 degrees/min, like in DSC experiments in Bentham paper. Looking just through magnifying glass, the most of chips were still red after heating, but generally darker…I would say that in all these photos, some shiny round objects (formed from the rust layers) are somehow visible. Therefore, their formation from red paints (or perhaps from any paint) on rust, when heated up to 700 degrees C, seems to be a quite common phenomenon. My results so far are not conclusive (I have to wait for the better microscope), round objects in Fig. 20 from Bentham are definitely better "developed"). But I am quite sure that when looking really closely (with a better microscope), I would find the better "examples", it's just a matter of patience."
Ivan never obtained an XEDS for the above work.

He did show us a lot of pretty pictures though.

Additionally, Ivan's results, such as they were represented what he felt was the gray layer of the red/gray chips;

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
"(It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here: these objects should mostly originate from gray layers, like in Bentham paper And it does not really matter if the content of iron is higher in them because of some partial reduction).
Somewhat like Millette, Ivan dismisses the need to fully pursue his investigation. He saw all that he wished to see.

They both make a great case for why you should place more value on peer-reviewed research Chris.

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 19th February 2014, 12:57 PM   #4069
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.



A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

Now moving on to Ivan.



Ivan never obtained an XEDS for the above work.

He did show us a lot of pretty pictures though.

Additionally, Ivan's results, such as they were represented what he felt was the gray layer of the red/gray chips;



Somewhat like Millette, Ivan dismisses the need to fully pursue his investigation. He saw all that he wished to see.

They both make a great case for why you should place more value on peer-reviewed research Chris.

MM
MM, what research have you ever dome ?
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 February 2014, 01:25 PM   #4070
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.
...
MM
Yes, iron spheres come from fires. You can't use iron spheres as a signature of thermite, the insane lie made up by Jones.

With the fantasy of thermite, trying to debunk fire can create iron spheres, the truth, only makes the thermite claim dumber.
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 19th February 2014, 03:08 PM   #4071
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM Dave and Ivan did simple experiments a little like Jon Cole. Jon Cole has a good YouTube video that shows you CAN burn through steel with thermate, thus debunking a claim made here many years ago. I accepted his experiments as valid for what they were trying to do, and actually confirmed my skepticism about the old claims here that thermitic materials can't do the job no matter what. Why don't you accept the informal results of Ivan and Dave? But you don't even accept the very formal and professional 100+ page report of Millette. And BTW I DO accept the data from the 2009 thermitic paper, I just disagree with the conclusion.
__________________
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 February 2014, 04:04 PM   #4072
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.
And the Twin Tower infernos were pristine, somehow?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
And Dave only found two micro-spheres.
How do you know this? Are you sure that, upon finding two, that was Proof of Concept, and that was enough? Or, were only two illustrated?
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 19th February 2014, 06:02 PM   #4073
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Your confidence that Millette analyzed the right chips means nothing in light of his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community.
Truthers need to get this through their skull:

The scientific community doesn't give a : about WTC dust. They KNOW what happened. Like the rest of the rational world.
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 19th February 2014, 10:19 PM   #4074
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,707
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
... his failure to publish his 2 year old paper and give it credibility in the scientific community. ...
Jones paper is a joke and has zero credibility in the scientific community. It was published in a vanity journal because no one would publish it. A political hack job, a paper with a fake conclusion to support Jones' insane claim of thermite.

Millette's paper is real science, Jones paper is nonsense. Why did Jones get fired in the first place; making up lies about 911.
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 19th February 2014, 10:54 PM   #4075
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM Dave's experiments got a kind of informal "peer review" from a colleague, who told him that he should have goosed up his burning experiment with a lot of strong winds as that would have produced a lot more iron-rich spheres. Remember, survivors often talked about "hurricane winds" as they were running down the WTC steps. Not enough iron-rich spheres? Come on! Or do you actually think the "contaminated" barrel had thermite in it?
__________________
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 20th February 2014, 06:57 AM   #4076
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
MM, what research have you ever dome ?
How heat affects the vaporization of agricultural resins when encased in rice paper?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 06:59 AM   #4077
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Truthers need to get this through their skull:

The scientific community doesn't give a : about WTC dust. They KNOW what happened. Like the rest of the rational world.
Yes, science has left the truthers behind in the dust.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 07:34 AM   #4078
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
When Mohr is Less

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM Dave and Ivan did simple experiments…

Why don't you accept the informal results of Ivan and Dave?

But you don't even accept the very formal and professional 100+ page report of Millette.

And BTW I DO accept the data from the 2009 thermitic paper, I just disagree with the conclusion.
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM Dave's experiments got a kind of informal "peer review" from a colleague, who told him that he should have goosed up his burning experiment with a lot of strong winds as that would have produced a lot more iron-rich spheres."
For you Chris, informal "peer reviews" are quite satisfactory as long as they support your bias?

And there-in lies the problem.

It is so much about chosen belief with you Chris, and so very little about the objective investigative journalism you loudly proclaim to practice.

I will accept respect the work of Dave, Ivan, and Jim when it is peer-reviewed and published which will allow professionals to formally challenge or accept their findings.

Whether you like it or not Chris, there is a standard scientific process that is expected to be followed before research findings make it to school textbooks.

The authors of the 2009 Bentham paper have followed the proper process and are quite prepared to formally engage in additional responses to any and all papers that are peer-reviewed and published in response.

What they are not prepared to do is publish 'knee-jerk' responses to every individual or group who unofficially argue opposing findings.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Iron-rich microspheres?

Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead.

And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!"
I use this quote as a case in point.

Neither David or Ivan have shown a quality proof for the claim you are making. But you eagerly embrace this belief anyway.

David produced two spheres from a huge sample in a highly contaminated test environment (the 2009 Bentham scientists produced many iron-rich spheres from a single dust chip in a laboratory environment).

Ivan produces some; "shiny round objects" with further comments of; "my results so far are not conclusive" and; "It would be interesting to measure XEDS of these round objects, we have necessary device in our institute, but I think there is hardly any doubt here…".

Yet your remarks are far from conditional.

You unequivocally state; "both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!".

Of course when reputable scientists working in a controlled laboratory environment, investigating actual 9/11 WTC dust samples and WTC steel primer paint discover the presence of thermitic material and elemental aluminum, you change hats and denounce their findings as scientifically unsound.

I do not foresee the likes of Woodward and Berstein knocking on your door anytime too soon.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 20th February 2014 at 07:42 AM.
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 07:42 AM   #4079
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I've gone over the material provided by David and Ivan.

It is pretty lean pickings as they say.

David has a history of over-stating his case.

First he gave us steel wool spheres. Oystein had enough integrity to call him out on that before the embarrassment became too great;


Regarding Dave's most recent video purported to produce "iron-rich spheres" from burning primer paint in an un-sanitized combustion barrel, even Sunstealer qualified his reference to the discovered couple of spheres.



A few things strike me about Dave's findings;

First of all he used a very crude, highly contaminated environment in which to burn his primer paint.

Secondly, where as Dr. Harrit et al ignited and discovered multiple iron-rich spheroids in the residue of individual dust chips, Dave sampled a large amount of burned primer paint residue.

And Dave only found two micro-spheres.

This a pretty weak case Chris.

...

MM

Two points, MM:
  • The only possible contamination would have been ashes from the burning wood. I took care to sample the burned beam where no ashes had smudged the burned paint. Of course, the only contamination that would have mattered would have been thermite itself; I can vouch that there was none.
  • Our science group purchased an hour of scanning electron microscope time. It was a couple hundred bucks. That doesn't leave a lot of time to search for things. SEM 'scopes really blow things up, a tiny sample holder becomes like exploring Africa. We spent much of our time making sure there were no spheres on the control (un-burned) sample. After verifying that to our satisfaction, we moved on to the burned samples. Once we had found the two spheres, our time was about used up, so we declared success and moved on.

If you're that dubious, MM, why not repeat the experiment on your own? Is there a university with an SEM nearby? What do they charge for usage? Maybe Dick Gage can cough up a couple thousand for you to follow up on this?

Last edited by DaveThomasNMSR; 20th February 2014 at 07:51 AM. Reason: clarity
DaveThomasNMSR 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 February 2014, 08:24 AM   #4080
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
MM, you keep making claims of what harrit et al are or aren't prepared to do.

Although I suspect you will do your usual question dodge I will ask anyway.

Are you an official spokes person for Harrit and Jones ?
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 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.