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 20th February 2014, 02:38 PM   #4081
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"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?"
Hurricane winds were not evidenced by the drifting black smoke we ALL observed Chris. Though I have little doubt the stairwells were channeling a lot of air from the breached building above and thus quite windy.

But not enough iron-rich spheres?

Think about it.

Dr. Harrit and particularly Mark Basile studied many red chips which were barely discernible to the eye in many cases. Yet they produced abundant iron-rich spheroids.

If those tiny dust chips were indeed steel primer paint, and given that they were outputting iron spheres at the relatively low temperature of 430C, don't you think that Dave's honking big pile of steel primer paint residue should have been swimming in all kinds of these microspheres?

Given the microscopic size of these microspheres, it is not implausible that an old combustion barrel like Dave used could have contained any number of iron microspheres previously created by processes that were not thermitic.

Regarding Dr. Harrit's often quoted statement;
Originally Posted by Dr. Harrit
"A scientific paper is a set of data and the best hypothesis rationalizing the observations. Fe-rich spheroids are observed after a thermite reaction. Fe-rich spheroids have never been observed unless there was a thermite reaction.
“Tenuous”?"
It is important that the context of that statement be taken into account. It is incredibly naive of you or anyone else to assume that Dr. Harrit is oblivious to all the processes that can create molten iron.

Dr. Harrit was responding to this comment and false perception;
Originally Posted by Interviewer
"Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids.

Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous."
MOVING ON TO DAVE THOMAS

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
"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?
Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

What you describe in your response is a rushed job. A VERY rushed job.

In a proper laboratory environment, Dr. Harrit et al spent countless hours performing, cataloging and analyzing their research and you feel you have credibly debunked them by the sloppy bit of work you squeezed into one hour.

Hypocrisy rules;

Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...55&postcount=3
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus
"Someone wake me when this guy actually publishes his results."
Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...03&postcount=5
Originally Posted by alienentity
"Who needs peer review when you have youtube?"
Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=20
Originally Posted by Edx
"Truthers dont need anything more substantial than someone that is apparently an expert telling them what they want to hear, if they do that in a youtube video its the perfect combination."
By the way, as you know Mark Basile is working on repeating his tests and publishing the results.

He has tested verified paints in lab conditions and never found molten spheres of any kind.

How many times do you think you can pull the steel wool over our eyes Dave?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 02:57 PM   #4082
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
Quote:
"Who needs peer review when you have youtube?"
Thread: Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite result:


By the way, as you know Mark Basile is working on repeating his tests and publishing the results.
MM
He's one of the original authors. Nice you use him as an independent reviewer.

Is Mark actually involved in the testing or is this going to be independent?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 20th February 2014 at 03:01 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 04:27 PM   #4083
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
DGM my understanding is that Mark Basile is going to give the chip samples to a lab whose workeers don't even know they are looking for thermite. It will be a blind materials characterization: what is this? And Mark says he will publish the results no matter what. Neither I nor anyone else from JREF is allowed to communicate with Mark to suggest the best way to do this. I have unilaterally sent Mark suggestions from Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan and others. MM is this correct?
__________________
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, 05:46 PM   #4084
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
DGM my understanding is that Mark Basile is going to give the chip samples to a lab whose workeers don't even know they are looking for thermite. It will be a blind materials characterization: what is this? And Mark says he will publish the results no matter what. Neither I nor anyone else from JREF is allowed to communicate with Mark to suggest the best way to do this. I have unilaterally sent Mark suggestions from Sunstealer, Oystein, Ivan and others. MM is this correct?
If you would like more information I suggest you go here;

http://markbasile.org/

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 06:21 PM   #4085
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If you would like more information I suggest you go here;

http://markbasile.org/

MM
I already see a problem.

Quote:
Sample Preparation:
- Red/gray chip separation using optical microscopy and magnetic attraction to assist in isolation of particles of interest.
- Optical images of collected particulates as collected at appropriate magnifications to record condition as collected.
If the lab comes to the same conclusions as Millette. Who's to say they had the right chips?

The lab would not be experienced(you said this was important) in finding the right one, right MM?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 20th February 2014 at 06:28 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2014, 07:49 PM   #4086
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
MOVING ON TO DAVE THOMAS



Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

...

How many times do you think you can pull the steel wool over our eyes Dave?

MM
So, MM, are you suggesting that the Twin Towers had no "Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc.", and thus that the iron-rich spheres in WTC dust can only be produced via Thermite?

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 21st February 2014, 03:41 AM   #4087
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Hey, MM, when are you going to get your comment mix and match work peer reviewed ?
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 21st February 2014, 04:41 AM   #4088
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If those tiny dust chips were indeed steel primer paint, and given that they were outputting iron spheres at the relatively low temperature of 430C, don't you think that Dave's honking big pile of steel primer paint residue should have been swimming in all kinds of these microspheres?
You have no proof that the spheres were produced at that temperature. The DSC did not stop at 430°C, it went up to 700°C.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
He has tested verified paints in lab conditions and never found molten spheres of any kind.
With rust attached?

As far as I know, only Ivan did this and he did find spheres that were quite similar to those in the paper.
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 21st February 2014, 05:23 AM   #4089
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
"..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…"
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Okay Dave, regarding your testing in an old steel combustion barrel, there are any number of possible sources for a few microscopic iron microspheres to have contaminated your burned primer paint residue.

Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc. Or are you suggesting you could spot such contaminants with the visible eye as you studiously avoided that wood ash smudge that so concerned you?

What you describe in your response is a rushed job. A VERY rushed job.

In a proper laboratory environment, Dr. Harrit et al spent countless hours performing, cataloging and analyzing their research and you feel you have credibly debunked them by the sloppy bit of work you squeezed into one hour.
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
So, MM, are you suggesting that the Twin Towers had no "Airbourne microscopic dust, disturbed previous microscopic debris coating the liner, microscopic cut metal debris, microscopic welding debris etc etc.", and thus that the iron-rich spheres in WTC dust can only be produced via Thermite?

If there is a point you are attempting to make David, it is well hidden?

WTC Ground Zero was fully exposed to the kinds of contamination I listed.

RJ Lee previously reported a finding of iron microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Finding two iron-rich microspheres in a contaminated debris pile is not a proof that they were produced by the burned steel primer paint in which they were found.

If proper scientific procedure was of interest to you, what you would have done, is obtain a fresh, uncontaminated, source of the same or similar steel primer paint, and performed a heat test on a sample in a clean laboratory environment using a muffle furnace or similar sterile apparatus.

Iron-rich microspheres found in that debris would justify your boasting.

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 21st February 2014, 06:10 AM   #4090
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If there is a point you are attempting to make David, it is well hidden?

WTC Ground Zero was fully exposed to the kinds of contamination I listed.

RJ Lee previously reported a finding of iron microspheres in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Finding two iron-rich microspheres in a contaminated debris pile is not a proof that they were produced by the burned steel primer paint in which they were found.

If proper scientific procedure was of interest to you, what you would have done, is obtain a fresh, uncontaminated, source of the same or similar steel primer paint, and performed a heat test on a sample in a clean laboratory environment using a muffle furnace or similar sterile apparatus.

Iron-rich microspheres found in that debris would justify your boasting.

MM
MM, you have come out with so much BS now and moved the goal posts so many times you have no idea what you are talking about.
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 21st February 2014, 06:59 AM   #4091
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM also quotes RJ Lee, who like many scientists knows that iron-rich spheres can be created in ordinary fires and has said so himself in his original report and in a followup email. He says there aren't enough microspheres found in Dave's little experiment and that he didn't spend enough money to buy the time to find more and more and more microspheres. Dave gets no credit for spending most of his available time looking for iron microspheres in the unburned sample and just a little bit of time quickly finding two examples of very iron-rich spheres. He accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed. Nothing he has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed. He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article. He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous. And in thge face of all this he accuses me of being blind, biased, unwilling to look at anythinhg that challenges MY beliefs!
I might mention that I am the one who did not take RJ Lee at his word when he said iron-rich spheres are common in fires. I didn't even accept Crone's Particle Atlas and all the iron-rih shperes it shows. No, I goaded Ivan and Dave for months and convinced them to actually do informal experiments to check all this out, andI was willing to accept whatever result they came ujp with. MM clearly is not, and is looking for reasons to reject anything and everything I do. No one I know of in JREF has given the 9/11 Truth side more opportunities to prove their case; I have even helped them by organizing experiments and investigations that for all I knew could have supported their case. Nothing I have done is good enough for MM and most of the rest of the 9/11 Truth people... except for several people who have changed their minds when they've seen the Millette study... and the 2-to-1 ratio of people who changed their minds in my direction after my debate with Richard.
__________________
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 21st February 2014, 07:13 AM   #4092
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
This thread is the biggest waste of time and energy on this whole website. It's laughable that anyone thinks microscopic particles of dust prove something that is physically impossible to begin with.

It's as if someone scraped rusted iron flakes off of the Titanic and thus concluded the ocean is made of steel.

Insane.
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 21st February 2014, 07:22 AM   #4093
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM also quotes RJ Lee, who like many scientists knows that iron-rich spheres can be created in ordinary fires and has said so himself in his original report and in a followup email.

He says there aren't enough microspheres found in Dave's little experiment and that he didn't spend enough money to buy the time to find more and more and more microspheres.

Dave gets no credit for spending most of his available time looking for iron microspheres in the unburned sample and just a little bit of time quickly finding two examples of very iron-rich spheres.

He accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed.

Nothing he has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed.

He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article.

He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous.

And in thge face of all this he accuses me of being blind, biased, unwilling to look at anythinhg that challenges MY beliefs!

I might mention that I am the one who did not take RJ Lee at his word when he said iron-rich spheres are common in fires.

I didn't even accept Crone's Particle Atlas and all the iron-rih shperes it shows.

No, I goaded Ivan and Dave for months and convinced them to actually do informal experiments to check all this out, andI was willing to accept whatever result they came ujp with.

MM clearly is not, and is looking for reasons to reject anything and everything I do.

No one I know of in JREF has given the 9/11 Truth side more opportunities to prove their case; I have even helped them by organizing experiments and investigations that for all I knew could have supported their case.

Nothing I have done is good enough for MM and most of the rest of the 9/11 Truth people... except for several people who have changed their minds when they've seen the Millette study... and the 2-to-1 ratio of people who changed their minds in my direction after my debate with Richard."
Well cry me a river.

That is a lot of handwringing Chris.

I was expecting either acceptance of my points or an objective rebuttal.

You have offered neither.

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 21st February 2014, 08:17 AM   #4094
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Well cry me a river.

That is a lot of handwringing Chris.

I was expecting either acceptance of my points or an objective rebuttal.

You have offered neither.

MM
Mmm, handwringing
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 21st February 2014, 08:17 AM   #4095
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Chris, is it so unreasonable of me to have suggested that David should have taken a pure sample of comparable steel primer paint and heat tested it in a clean laboratory environment?

Are you interested in the truth or not?

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM…accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed."
This is not true Chris.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc
Originally Posted by Mark Basile - Chemical Engineer
"So what I did was I set up a little instrument where I could basically control heat these chips.

I basically made up a little apparatus [described above] which I could control heat just to the point where these chips would ignite.

We know what their ignition temperature is based on other scientists work. So I can basically in a controlled manner bring these chips up to the ignition temperature, watch them ignite, with my microscope and camera, and you are about to see one, and then go in and analyze what has happened after the chemical reaction.

If you take these chips and section them, and look at them before you ignite them, there are no iron micro-spheres, there are no iron particles, there are no iron films contained in these chips.

It is only after you bring them up to their ignition point and they go through their thermitic reaction, that liquid iron is produced and the energy is released.

These chips are not naturally occurring."
And in a further quote;

Originally Posted by Mark Basile - Chemical Engineer
"If you take these chips, before you ignite them, and I have done it, just like I did where I said I exposed a fresh section.

I've cut into these chips, dozens, if not hundreds of times and I have never found an iron microsphere inside.

I have never found a film of iron inside.

It is not there until the chip reacts.

When the chip reacts, it produces molten iron.

There is no free iron.

There is iron oxide before you ignite it but there is no free iron inside these chips."
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Nothing he [MM] has ever said has been peer reviewed but he expects us to respond to him while he rejects what Millette says for nbot being peer reviewed.

He ignores my repeated assertions that Millette's preliminary report has in fact enjoyed more peer feedback from the hundreds of people who attended his two forensis lectures on his report than the feedback that is ever given a peer-reviewed article.

He is an anonymouse poster who puts down Sunstealer and Oystein et al for being anonymous."
What is your point Chris?

This is a discussion forum and the overwhelming majority of its participants are anonymous.

I research the science knowledgebases and present argument here and elsewhere against those who are ignorant, and/or misrepresent the legitimacy of existing findings.

No where do I presume to present my own scientific research.

When someone does present their own scientific investigations, regardless of their credentials (or lack of), I expect them to follow a scientific regime that stands up to normal scrutiny. If their findings have any integrity, they should be able to survive peer-review and qualify for publishing.

David's work, whether well-intentioned or not, fails miserably.

Dr. Millette's work is a different matter. He has let his report 'sit' for over two years.

He knows that his research, his reputation, and the image of his company are safe, as long as the only kind of peer review his report receives is in the form of polite applause from a seated audience.

When and if Dr. Millette dares to publish his findings, Dr. Harrit et al will publish a rebuttal.

Dr. Millette very well knows that at such time, he will then be in the public spotlight and no longer preaching to the converted.

I really think you have lost sight of the ball Chris.

We are discussing the very very serious finding by reputable scientists that nanothermite existed throughout the 9/11 WTC debris.

Wake up!

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 21st February 2014, 08:30 AM   #4096
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
We are discussing the very very serious finding by reputable scientists that nanothermite existed throughout the 9/11 WTC debris.
Therein lies your problem. Any thought that these people are "reputable scientists" is laughable.

The fact is nothing, and I mean NOTHING on this planet will ever convince you. So why bother? We could have 1000 people come up with the same conclusions as reality, and one come up with a conclusion that "there may have been something that resembled therm*te" and you'll take that one person's word as gospel.

Why?

There was no therm*te. There was no Controlled Demolition. It was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You're either a total idiot (you're not) or you're lying. Why?
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 21st February 2014, 08:51 AM   #4097
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

This is not true Chris.

Quote:
We know what their ignition temperature is based on other scientists work. So I can basically in a controlled manner bring these chips up to the ignition temperature, watch them ignite, with my microscope and camera, and you are about to see one, and then go in and analyze what has happened after the chemical reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc



MM
This actually prove Chris to be correct. He has no idea what temperature the spheres were actually produced at, only the temperature the chip was likely to ignite. Once ignition occurs he is no longer in control of the temperature.
__________________
"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 22nd February 2014, 07:36 AM   #4098
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM if I sound burned out it's because I am. I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances. But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts. People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.
__________________
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 22nd February 2014, 07:42 AM   #4099
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM if I sound burned out it's because I am. I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances. But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts. People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.
Chris, I for one would like to express my appreciation for the work you've done in organizing all these experiments. I've learned a lot by reading through the explanations of the data by experts, as an engineer in an outside discipline with no relation whatsoever to anything 9/11.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2014, 09:00 AM   #4100
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Chris It Was Never A Popularity Contest

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
MM if I sound burned out it's because I am.

I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances.

But when I organize a major study like Millette's and a couple smaller experiments like those done by Dave and Ivan, it's my mistake when I focus only on those who see no value whatsoever in my efforts.

People like you. It's to be excpected.

As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al.

That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us.

He seems more honest than some, to be blunt.
bolding is mine

Fatigue is not yours alone to bear Chris.

I have been "burned out" a few times here.

Not only am I older than you, but I joined JREF back at the start of 2007 and have devoted an immeasurable amount of my time, energy, and my life here (over 4,000 posts to the 9/11 subForum), pursuing the truth about 9/11.

4 years on, you became a participant in this subForum and under the guise of "investigative journalism", you've devoted some of your time and energy promoting a heavily-biased belief that you were also genuinely interested in pursing the truth about 9/11.

And yes you have garnered much publicity for your videos, your 235+ points, your debates, and yes your involvement with Millette's pre-planned report which is supposed to be the subject of this thread.

Such efforts are certainly laudable, but only if they are 'fair and balanced'.

In this forum you have always benefited from being in the popular and majority position, whereas I and others brave enough to question the establishment have been subjected to withering assaults of abuse.

Because I am human, I have in the past allowed the gate keepers here to provoke me which has lead to several suspensions and the brink of being banned.

Many good people no longer post here because of the success of those gate keepers.

In our recent exchanges, I have only been attempting to keep you honest.

Dave Thomas no doubt is a great guy and I have nothing against him personally. But when he publicly makes unproven claims based on sloppy work and uses this to boastfully attempt rebuttal of the published work of scientists who have gone to great investigative lengths, and who have paid a great personal cost to get their unpopular message voiced, I feel there is no room for polite accommodations.

I have no doubt that Dr. Millette is a wonderful man in person as well. My questioning of his work and his underlying motives are made strictly in the quest of the truth.

Mark Basile is indeed one of the most open and genuine scientists you could ever want to meet. How do you discredit his findings? "He had fewer measuring instruments than Dr. Harrit et al".

Whether or not that had any relevance to the research he performed does not seem to be of concern to you. Where is the detailed scrutiny that investigative journalists take so much pride in?

You say you have the same "truth" goal, but when push comes to shove, you are far too accommodating of those who support your bias and intolerant of those who legitimately question your beliefs.

The events of 9/11 and the catastrophic consequences that it brought about, are far too serious for anyone to selfishly and publicly pity themselves over the personal costs that come from attempting a greater understanding.

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 22nd February 2014, 09:23 AM   #4101
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Come on man.

If you're smart enough to operate a computer, you're smart enough to know CD at the WTC site is baloney. You're not pursuing the truth. You're pursuing being right.
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 22nd February 2014, 11:50 AM   #4102
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
"You're not pursuing the truth.

You're pursuing being right."

Since when is it not right to pursue the truth?

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 22nd February 2014 at 11:53 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 22nd February 2014, 12:01 PM   #4103
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since when is it not right to pursue the truth?

MM
There's a difference when referring to you people. You think you already know the truth, and you invent, lie and omit facts in order to make your twisted reality into what you and you alone call 'the truth'.

Last edited by NoahFence; 22nd February 2014 at 12:02 PM.
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 22nd February 2014, 12:07 PM   #4104
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM another reason for my burnout is that, for example, you completely misinterpret what I said about Mark Basile. All I said was that he didn't have as many instruments to measure what was going on as as Harrit/Jones. So he's organizing a more thorough study than he could do himself, just like I did. Because he is organizing what looks to me like an honest dust study he deserves credit for that (even though I am frustrated that he refused any attempts to get "buyin" from the other side).

Accusations from you like Millette's "preplanned report" and that I am operating under "the guise of 'investigative journalism'" and that I am "intolerant" are mean-spirited and the cause of my burnout--from you and many others. Yes, I enjoy the advantage of being on the "popular" side here, but what you don't seem to "get" is that I always have looked for reasons to be convinced I am wrong, and wherever I am most uncertain in my understanding, I go there to challenge myself and maybe be proven wrong (the Millette experiment only the biggest example). I don't blame you if you are more burned out than me, and sure you way get more flack from others than I ever get from you... but still. I am burned out. I'm sick of your accusations and your proclivity to see the worst in me. Repeated personal attacks and accusations on my motives are not truth-seeking, they're just mean and I'm burned out on them. Watch out whenever you think you understand my motives or the motives of others. Your accusations say more about you than they do about me, my friend.
__________________
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 22nd February 2014, 03:00 PM   #4105
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
A Bridge Too Far?

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM another reason for my burnout is that, for example, you completely misinterpret what I said about Mark Basile."
Believe it or not, it was not my wish or desire to wrongly interpret your words Chris.

The quote below was the line of discourse I was attempting to follow with you;

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!"
Those claims are of great interest to me as well and what I hoped our discussion would tackle.

My concern is that we avoid unnecessary confusion by keeping things on track and in proper context.

Your followup comments about Mark Basile appeared to be an attempt to diminish the quality and integrity of his work as a response to my valid criticism of Dave Thomas's non-laboratory testing and Ivan's dismissive attitude towards his own tests. Ivan even admitted he had access to XEDS but could not be bothered because he was sure he was likely right.

You could have responded to the point I made below but you chose to ignore it in favour of defending bad science;

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Chris, is it so unreasonable of me to have suggested that David should have taken a pure sample of comparable steel primer paint and heat tested it in a clean laboratory environment?

Are you interested in the truth or not?
You made no comment to this. Why?

Mark Basile's research is far more in-depth and polished than that of Dave Thomas as you are well aware Chris.

He has reproduced his ignition experiments countless times and I have quoted him extensively.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"MM…accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed."
Your chosen words have very clear meaning and intent Chris.

The language is very clear and very dismissive. I am sure you intended it to be taken as such.

Naturally I took umbrage at your support of findings from a combustion barrel test with 1 hour followup analysis, compared to the work of a chemical engineer who has spent countless hours testing and analyzing materials in a laboratory environment.

Yes Mark Basile lacked a DSC (as does Millette), but he did build a heating apparatus which unlike Dave Thomas's, offered accurate heat control which could be cut off at the point of ignition.

Any heat generated after ignition was coming from the test chip and not some random wood fire or a DSC continuing to climb to 700C.

The quality of Dr. Millette's work is not in question. The problem, as you have been made well aware Chris, is that the evidence points to Millette having performed quality work on the wrong material.

His work presented in the Feb.29, 2012 report has never been peer-reviewed.

If presentations to a seated audience in a presentation hall constitutes peer-review, than you have to give credit to similar speaking engagements performed by Dr. Jones, Richard Gage et al.

And then you start to revise and soften your comments when challenged.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt."
It was Mark Basile who is credited (by Dr. Jones) with having made the original discovery of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.

Yes Mark wants to leave no stone unturned in his current research in order to satisfy any outstanding questions that still remain. He has not claimed that there is any problem with his previous work.

And then you soften your comment further.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"All I said was that he didn't have as many instruments to measure what was going on as as Harrit/Jones.

So he's organizing a more thorough study than he could do himself, just like I did. Because he is organizing what looks to me like an honest dust study he deserves credit for that (even though I am frustrated that he refused any attempts to get "buyin" from the other side)."
Really there was never not much of a point to be made against Mark Basile. He has done great work and plans to proceed further, with or without your support.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Accusations from you like Millette's "preplanned report" and that I am operating under "the guise of 'investigative journalism'" and that I am "intolerant" are mean-spirited and the cause of my burnout--from you and many others."
Dr. Millette's report was a work-in-progress when he accepted that additional $1,000 of our money to supposedly include an investigation of the 2009 Bentham paper findings.

The "laboratory guy" as you described him back then was under obligation to present a dust paper in early 2012 and tagging on the analysis of some easily acquired magnetic red chips fit the ticket nicely.

And yes I have been harsh on you regarding your often claimed status as an "investigative journalist" because you constantly disappoint me and others by how subjective and lightweight your investigations are.

You give far too much credit to the words of anonymous zealots like Sunstealer and Oystein, acquiesce to those in authority like Dr. Millette and the NIST etc., and too often scorn the intensive investigative work performed by scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc etc.

If the label fits, fine, but as an investigative journalist, the label does not fit you.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"Yes, I enjoy the advantage of being on the "popular" side here, but what you don't seem to "get" is that I always have looked for reasons to be convinced I am wrong, and wherever I am most uncertain in my understanding, I go there to challenge myself and maybe be proven wrong (the Millette experiment only the biggest example)."
If so, where is your investigative response to Dave's failure to simply test steel primer paint in a clean lab?

Where is your investigation into the errors made in the NIST Report for the collapse of WTC7?

Where is your scientific debunking of the 2009 Bentham paper nanothermite findings?

All I have seen is you constantly looking in directions that you hope will continue to prove you are right. A true investigative journalist is only interested in solving the mystery, not avoiding it whenever possible.

The "popular side" here will always feed you what they want you to believe.

I remember how popular Dr. Frank Greening used to be here until he wore out his welcome by honestly questioning "popular belief".

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"I don't blame you if you are more burned out than me, and sure you way get more flack from others than I ever get from you... but still. I am burned out. I'm sick of your accusations and your proclivity to see the worst in me. Repeated personal attacks and accusations on my motives are not truth-seeking, they're just mean and I'm burned out on them. Watch out whenever you think you understand my motives or the motives of others. Your accusations say more about you than they do about me, my friend."
All I ask you respond with true journalistic integrity 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 22nd February 2014, 06:31 PM   #4106
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
if I sound burned out it's because I am.
I hadn't even noticed you ignite.
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances.
Don't overestimate yourself please. I watched your "rebuttal" videos when you released them a while back, and was going to do a reply video to anything of substance that I found. Still looking....
gerrycan 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 22nd February 2014, 06:53 PM   #4107
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Chris, I for one would like to express my appreciation for the work you've done in organizing all these experiments. I've learned a lot by reading through the explanations of the data by experts, as an engineer in an outside discipline with no relation whatsoever to anything 9/11.
+1. Since I just started working for a specialty chemical company, the knowledge will probably come in handy also.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2014, 07:40 PM   #4108
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I guess what I have done serves to either seriously undermine people's beliefs in CD or harden their stances.
Don't overestimate yourself please. I watched your "rebuttal" videos when you released them a while back, and was going to do a reply video to anything of substance that I found. Still looking....


Thanks for proving Chris's point gerrycan.
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 23rd February 2014, 09:28 AM   #4109
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post


Thanks for proving Chris's point gerrycan.
Chris had a point? Where did he get that from?
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 05:28 PM   #4110
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
This thread is the biggest waste of time and energy on this whole website. It's laughable that anyone thinks microscopic particles of dust prove something that is physically impossible to begin with.

It's as if someone scraped rusted iron flakes off of the Titanic and thus concluded the ocean is made of steel.

Insane.
You have nailed it in one. The whole truther premise is dumber than a bag of hammers.
HotRodDeluxe 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 23rd February 2014, 07:12 PM   #4111
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
This thread is the biggest waste of time and energy on this whole website. It's laughable that anyone thinks microscopic particles of dust prove something that is physically impossible to begin with.

It's as if someone scraped rusted iron flakes off of the Titanic and thus concluded the ocean is made of steel.

Insane.
"These iron flakes prove conclusively that the damage was not caused by an iceberg but that it was thermite that caused the gash in the ship".
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 23rd February 2014, 07:19 PM   #4112
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since when is it not right to pursue the truth?

MM

I thought you already had the truth.
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 23rd February 2014, 08:05 PM   #4113
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Gerrycan and MM,

Gerry you disagree with Richard Gage, who once said I was one of the only people to make a serious attempt to respond to him point by point (even though he still completely disagrees with me). You lose all credibility with me when you say I have said nothing of substance at all and don't even bother to explain why you believe this. I have a point, 238 of them in fact, representing a thousand+ hours of research.

MM a few quick things: 1) I have already explained why I did not intend to demean Mark Basile. I'm too burned out to try to justify myself with you again on this matter.

2) As for Dave Thomas, you wondered why I didn't respond to your question, "Chris, is it so unreasonable of me to have suggested that David should have taken a pure sample of comparable steel primer paint and heat tested it in a clean laboratory environment? Are you interested in the truth or not?" so here is your answer: your question ends with a passive-aggressive attack which is another reason I am burned out on you. But I'll answer anyway, as I have before: Dave's experiment, while simple, adequately answers the question I posed: can you create iron-rich spheres by burning regular paint at regular fire temperatures? Contamination is irrelevant, SOMETHING created those iron-rich spheres (almost certainly the paint on steel) and it wasn't thermite, which is claimed by you to be the one signature ONLY way these things are created. You're wrong. Dave proved it, and Ivan thinks he demonstrated it as well.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 23rd February 2014 at 08:08 PM. Reason: added sentence
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 23rd February 2014, 09:04 PM   #4114
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Gerrycan and MM,

Gerry you disagree with Richard Gage, who once said I was one of the only people to make a serious attempt to respond to him point by point (even though he still completely disagrees with me). You lose all credibility with me when you say I have said nothing of substance at all and don't even bother to explain why you believe this. I have a point, 238 of them in fact, representing a thousand+ hours of research.
Quick question about one of those points - how much louder than 130dB is 140dB
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 09:57 PM   #4115
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Quick question about one of those points - how much louder than 130dB is 140dB
Trick question? Or did you catch a mistake of mine? Let me know what it is if I did. It won't be the first. I accept corrections even from people who put me down and say insulting things to me. I may be wrong, but I think 140 db has 10x as much air pressure as 130 db.
__________________
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 23rd February 2014, 10:18 PM   #4116
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Trick question? Or did you catch a mistake of mine? Let me know what it is if I did. It won't be the first. I accept corrections even from people who put me down and say insulting things to me. I may be wrong, but I think 140 db has 10x as much air pressure as 130 db.
So was it a fair statement by NIST to say that a blast would make that kind of noise at the distance they quoted? And how many of your 1000+ hours did you spend researching that claim before you repeated it?
Sorry if I insulted you, but as someone who has scrutinised bad claims from within the truth movement as much as those from outwith it concerning 911, I think it's a bit rich for you to claim to have done the same thing.
It is my opinion that you took every low hanging piece of fruit that you were handed from people on here and ran with it rather than actually doing your own research from a starting point of neutrality, which is the position that you presented publicly to people who were truly neutral with regard to 911.
gerrycan 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 23rd February 2014, 10:58 PM   #4117
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
So now we have MM and Gerrycan who want to talk about anything but thermite
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 24th February 2014, 07:40 AM   #4118
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So was it a fair statement by NIST to say that a blast would make that kind of noise at the distance they quoted? And how many of your 1000+ hours did you spend researching that claim before you repeated it?
Sorry if I insulted you, but as someone who has scrutinised bad claims from within the truth movement as much as those from outwith it concerning 911, I think it's a bit rich for you to claim to have done the same thing.
It is my opinion that you took every low hanging piece of fruit that you were handed from people on here and ran with it rather than actually doing your own research from a starting point of neutrality, which is the position that you presented publicly to people who were truly neutral with regard to 911.
Gerrycan, I spent about an hour researching the fact that controlled demolitions are very very loud. And not just by looking at JREF posts, I also wrote several letters to CD companies and had a correspondence going with CD expert and 911 CD advocate Tom Sullivan. CD is deafeningly loud, in fact. When Richard Gage compares the Building 7 collapse to a controlled demolition he cuts out the sound because they do NOT compare. So it seemed fair to simply quote NIST's very high estimates of the db levels attained in a CD. If NIST's assertion is inaccurate, the point still has validity.

I didn't pick low hanging fruit only. On the thermite question alone, I disagreed with many JREFers here by asserting that if thermite were found in the dust, this would be relevant. I took a stand in favor of Jon Cole's experiments showing that thermate CAN cut through steel when people here said it couldn't. I was skeptical of claims that therm?te COULDN'T be used to bring down a building and instead looked for evidence that it DID or DIDN'T get used in this case (no blinding lights or aluminum oxide etc). I told JREFers repeatedly that I couldn't understand the freefall of Building 7 and would publicly say this is a mystery unless I had a 100% sensible explanation. I talked to School of Mines people about thermite to be sure I understood the chemcal processes involved.

When Jim Millette didn't research the iron microspheres, I goaded two people into doing simple experiments. When he didn't do the DSC tests, I contacted several labs and asked them if they would do it. Six or seven refused, afraid that if it WERE thermite, it would destroy their crucibles. I reseached and acknowledged that Farrer et al actually DID have the correct crucibles to contain thermite in their 2009 experiments (oooh, come to think of it, does Mark Basile have a specially designed crucible or does IT get destroyed at thermite-burning temperatures?)

I presented myself honestly, not as neutral but as "skeptical but open," which I was. Now I'm totally skeptical, and burned out. Time to wrap up my last YouTube video, stick around awhile to respond, and move on.

And if you think that approaching some two dozen labs to find someone who could look for thermite in the dust, and spending hours researching Jim Millette on the internet and being unable to find anything that had been said against him by 9/11 Truth people is picking low-hanging fruit, you're simply wrong. How about the ten chemists I wrote to and called who were not part of the 9/11 debate? Or the 14 physics professors? Hosw about the mockery I got from scientists for even wasting their time asking these questions?
__________________
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 24th February 2014, 09:06 AM   #4119
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
MM: Jones, Farrer and Basile could not create iron-rich spheres. But the McCrone Particle Atlas shows it. RJ Lee says it's to be expected in fires. Apparently they are created sometimes baut not always. I was actually uncertain whether Dave or Ivan would find these iron-rich spheres because I am aware that Farrer/Jones/Harrit had not succeeded.

NoahFence, I'd be careful about guaranteeing rational discussion if only MM were rational. Some of his claims are presented rationally (these days, it's getting real personal which is OK by me for now as I give reasons for my burnout and hear his reactions). As I always say, JREF is a rough playground, and to be honest, it will ALWAYS be rougher still for MM and other 9/11 Truth people, no matter how cool and collected they manage to be and no matter what quality of arguments they present.

MM I'll tell you right now I'm finished defending myself personally. Don't expect responses from your continuing accusations.
__________________
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 24th February 2014, 10:01 AM   #4120
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
THE BIG QUESTION

"Can you create iron-rich spheres by burning regular paint at regular fire temperatures?"

Dr. Farrer in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Dr.Jones in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Dr. Harrit in a laboratory setting could not do it.

Chemical engineer, Mark Basile in a laboratory setting could not do it.

All reputable work by esteemed scientists that you casually dismiss without explanation or cause.
And how do "regular paint" samples compare to the red/gray chip samples? Did these "regular paint" samples have a "mysterious" gray layer attached to them? Did the "regular paint" samples contain possible contamination like the red/gray chip samples?

You said they separated out red/gray paint chips. Why didn't they test those instead of regular paint samples from outside sources?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 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.