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 5th December 2012, 01:42 AM   #1081
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chris: As for potential sources of WTC floor trusses with some primer paint, what about people who had been engaged in the inspection of the heat insulation there?

I's written here that inspections of Roger G. Morse, a consultant in Troy, N.Y. began in 1986 and continued intermittently until June 2000.

His present addresses are here.

I suppose that the inspections were mostly visual, without taking some samples (??), but in some cases (during such a long time), perhaps some samples from floor trusses were scratched off/cut off or so (??). Such samples would have a great advantage in comparison with samples taken after collapses: the primer paint might be well-preserved there.
(And even samples of heat insulation can contain some particles of primer paint, btw)

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 5th December 2012 at 01:52 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:47 AM   #1082
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chris: Also, some samples of floor trusses can be hypothetically held by Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), according to this interesting article.

Anyway, only Jim Millette as a professional engaged in this "new investigation of 9/11" can ask for the samples, I think.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 06:01 AM   #1083
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,119
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why don't we deal with that should it happen?

If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

But no potential debunker wants to challenge the Bentham Paper using the same methodology.

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper.

MM
Sure, we're afraid because we have so much to lose if the Bentham paper is proven correct.

Is that really what you think??
OCaptain 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 5th December 2012, 08:18 AM   #1084
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Ivan,
Thanks for your leads. Can anyone follow up on this and make the request? Time is tight for me. I have pursued NIST to the Port Authority and just yesterday I emailed the person who manages the WTC remains. I'll keep following through on that. Anyone (Oystein? Ivan?) willing to find out if these possible sources could help? Real LaClede primer from a WTC truss would be very very useful, and Millette will test it if he can find 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 5th December 2012, 10:02 AM   #1085
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint.
Here's a thought experiment that even a truther can do.

In front of you is a bowl labelled A - it contains fruit. The fruits are Apple, Orange, Banana.

There is an empty bowl labelled B.

I am going to show you a picture of a fruit and I want you to take all the fruit corresponding with that picture from bowl A and place it in Bowl B.

OK - shows Ergo the picture of an Apple.

Ergo takes all the Apples from bowl A and puts them in Bowl B.

Now Ergo - why do you rule out Bananas being in bowl B?


I still see that no truther will dare answer my question - do you agree with me and the authors of the Harrit et al paper that chips samples a, b, c and d are all the same material?

It's amazing that no truther will even have the honesty, integrity and balls to say yes or no to that question. They fear either answer. BTW this ties in with the Apples scenario above.
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 5th December 2012, 11:07 AM   #1086
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Ergo:
Just for your information: I am not an anonymous internet debunker. I have used my full name from the very beginning here. I am a polymer chemist working in Czech Academy of Sciences with about 50 peer-reviewed papers in the field (try Google Scholar or better the Web of Science).
And you have no access to a lab ??
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 11:19 AM   #1087
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And you have no access to a lab ??
Haven't really read his work, Have you? (you answered this question with the post).
__________________
"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; 5th December 2012 at 11:25 AM.
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 5th December 2012, 11:26 AM   #1088
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Sigh. So you won't commit to saying a=b=c=d then? The paper concludes this. I conclude this. But you don't.

If not why not?
Sunstealer, I have answered you on this before. I also qualified my opinion on the matter in that same post. Your reply to that was here, and I have yet to finish reading that lengthy post, as it still was not answering why this point (that chips a - d are the same) is significant for your argument, and why you think ATM supporters don't agree with you on that.

If you could summarize your point in a nutshell, (like is done in abstracts) then I could read the rest of your post with more understanding.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 11:38 AM   #1089
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,535
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, I have answered you on this before. I also qualified my opinion on the matter in that same post. Your reply to that was here, and I have yet to finish reading that lengthy post, as it still was not answering why this point (that chips a - d are the same) is significant for your argument, and why you think ATM supporters don't agree with you on that.

If you could summarize your point in a nutshell, (like is done in abstracts) then I could read the rest of your post with more understanding.
The most specific imn your answer was this:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
But are there any chips that don't show Al-Si-Fe peaks ? If not, then my answer is that, based on the chemical signatures, their appearance (morphology) and magnetism, all of Millette's chips and all of Harrit's chips are essentially the same material.
...
Do I understand you correctly when I construe this statement thusly:
1. You are saying that any material that has all of the folling properties, is "essentially" the same material: i.) Has, among others, XEDS peaks for Al, Si and Fe (relative peak height irrelevant) ii.) Looks like a chip, red and gray layer iii.) attracted by a magnet
2. You agree that chips a-d, and the MEK chip, and every chip that Millette looked at that fulfilled the requirements i.) - iii.) are all "essentially" the same material

If that is not so, please clarify!

If that is however a fair rendering of your claim, would you then further agree that, since all these materials are "essentially" the same, that one of these three disjoint possibilities must be true:
A) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are active thermitic material, i.e. manufactured with the intention of making an incendiary or explosive
B) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are paint, and not thermitic
C) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are neither thermitic nor paint


Thanks
Oystein 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 5th December 2012, 11:57 AM   #1090
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The most specific imn your answer was this:

Do I understand you correctly when I construe this statement thusly:
1. You are saying that any material that has all of the folling properties, is "essentially" the same material: i.) Has, among others, XEDS peaks for Al, Si and Fe (relative peak height irrelevant) ii.) Looks like a chip, red and gray layer iii.) attracted by a magnet
2. You agree that chips a-d, and the MEK chip, and every chip that Millette looked at that fulfilled the requirements i.) - iii.) are all "essentially" the same material
With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess or be willing to agree that this is the case, yes.


Quote:
If that is however a fair rendering of your claim, would you then further agree that, since all these materials are "essentially" the same, that one of these three disjoint possibilities must be true:
A) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are active thermitic material, i.e. manufactured with the intention of making an incendiary or explosive
B) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are paint, and not thermitic
C) All chips (chips a-d, MEK chip, Millette chips) are neither thermitic nor paint
No, I would not agree. I think there are mixed possibilities. I think it's been shown more than adequately that the red-gray chips are not paint, or certainly not just paint. I think it's possible for some of the chips to be active thermitic and others, because of inconsistent chemical distribution or some other reason, to not be, or to not have enough properties to display thermitic behaviour.

I also think it's possible for the chips to be neither paint nor nanothermite.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 12:04 PM   #1091
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, I have answered you on this before. I also qualified my opinion on the matter in that same post. Your reply to that was here, and I have yet to finish reading that lengthy post, as it still was not answering why this point (that chips a - d are the same) is significant for your argument, and why you think ATM supporters don't agree with you on that.

If you could summarize your point in a nutshell, (like is done in abstracts) then I could read the rest of your post with more understanding.
Thank you - I was trying to find your specific post months ago. I wanted to show how your correct use of logic can only lead to one conclusion.

Here is the important part.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not sure I'd be able to answer, nor that this is a meaningful question. I see obvious similarities (Al-Si-Fe peaks) and minor differences.

But are there any chips that don't show Al-Si-Fe peaks ? If not, then my answer is that, based on the chemical signatures, their appearance (morphology) and magnetism, all of Millette's chips and all of Harrit's chips are essentially the same material.
This is not surprising because Millette states that he used the SEM EDS spectrum in Fig 7 as a criteria for further examination. (Essentially using the picture of an Apple as criteria to separate Apples from a bowl containing Apples, Oranges and Bananas.)

Millette then goes way, way further and uses methods that are definitive on these very same chips, namely FTIR analysis and TEM-SAED. He uses an additional two independent methods whose results agree with each other to conclusively show exactly what the red layer contains. The material contains kaolin, epoxy and iron oxide pigment. Two of these are not found in thermite but all are found in red paint.

Millette concludes the material is paint. Millette concludes that the material is NOT thermite.

Therefore, if you conclude, using your method of pattern recognition, (which is the same as mine and the same as the authors of the paper) that samples a, b, c and d in the Harrit et al paper are the same, then you must conclude that the samples Millette analysed that fit the same pattern must also be the same.

Millette shows that his samples are paint and not thermite, therefore it is safe to conclude that samples a, b, c and d are paint and not thermite because they are the same material.

You have indirectly stated that you agree that the samples a, b, c and d in Harrit et al are NOT thermite.

You say a=b=c=d= Millette = paint ≠ thermite.

You have debunked the Harrit et al paper.
Welcome to the debunkerville - your NWO cheque is in the mail.
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 5th December 2012, 12:07 PM   #1092
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
With my amateur understanding on the matter, I would guess or be willing to agree that this is the case, yes.




No, I would not agree. I think there are mixed possibilities. I think it's been shown more than adequately that the red-gray chips are not paint, or certainly not just paint. I think it's possible for some of the chips to be active thermitic and others, because of inconsistent chemical distribution or some other reason, to not be, or to not have enough properties to display thermitic behaviour.

I also think it's possible for the chips to be neither paint nor nanothermite.
But you've already agreed that the material is the same based on the fact they have consistent chemical distribution/consistent characteristics/consistent EDS spectra/consistently separated by magnet!
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 5th December 2012, 12:12 PM   #1093
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,535
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
No, I would not agree. I think there are mixed possibilities. I think it's been shown more than adequately that the red-gray chips are not paint, or certainly not just paint. I think it's possible for some of the chips to be active thermitic and others, because of inconsistent chemical distribution or some other reason, to not be, or to not have enough properties to display thermitic behaviour.

I also think it's possible for the chips to be neither paint nor nanothermite.
You think it is possible for two specimens to be "essentially the same material", when
  • one is thermitic, the other is not
  • one is paint, the other is not
???

You have funny semantics for "essentially" and "the same"
Oystein 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 5th December 2012, 12:17 PM   #1094
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Millette then goes way, way further and uses methods that are definitive on these very same chips, namely FTIR analysis and TEM-SAED. He uses an additional two independent methods whose results agree with each other to conclusively show exactly what the red layer contains. The material contains kaolin, epoxy and iron oxide pigment. Two of these are not found in thermite but all are found in red paint.

Millette concludes the material is paint. Millette concludes that the material is NOT thermite

Millette states that his findings are consistent with paint. He can't identify what kind of paint. He also states there was no elemental aluminum, while Harrit and Jones's results clearly indicate a separation of the silicon and aluminum in the MEK sample. For you to conclude that "oh, that one chip must be Tnemec then" without testing it is amateur, and until you test it, is a highly tenuous hypothesis.

Moreover the DSC tests showed behaviour completely anomalous to paint.

If Harrit et al's methodology was incomplete - but I don't think it was, since we know they did FTIR and TEM as well - so was Millette's. He didn't test the behaviour of the chips. A test which, when you're looking for energetic materials, would be obviously indicated, as Tillotson and Gash also show.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 12:29 PM   #1095
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Millette states that his findings are consistent with paint. He can't identify what kind of paint. He also states there was no elemental aluminum, while Harrit and Jones's results clearly indicate a separation of the silicon and aluminum in the MEK sample. For you to conclude that "oh, that one chip must be Tnemec then" without testing it is amateur, and until you test it, is a highly tenuous hypothesis.

Moreover the DSC tests showed behaviour completely anomalous to paint.

If Harrit et al's methodology was incomplete - but I don't think it was, since we know they did FTIR and TEM as well - so was Millette's. He didn't test the behaviour of the chips. A test which, when you're looking for energetic materials, would be obviously indicated, as Tillotson and Gash also show.
You are not addressing the point!

It doesn't matter what specific formulation of paint the material is it just matters that it's paint and not thermite.

I am not talking about the MEK chip. I am talking about chips a, b, c, and d and the corresponding data in Fig 6,7 and 11 from Harrit.

You yourself have concluded that a=b=c=d. So has Harrit. So have we. If you conclude that then you must conclude that Millette also has samples that are the same material as a,b,c, and d.

Are you now saying that the samples a-d are not the same? If so why? Show why they are not the same.

You are trying to say they are the same but not the same.

N.B. DSC testing is moot because a=b=c=d=millette=paint.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 5th December 2012 at 12:31 PM.
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 5th December 2012, 12:30 PM   #1096
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Sunstealer, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You asked me if I thought all the chips were essentially the same. I said I thought that is a very reasonable conclusion. I include the MEK chip in that assumption. The MEK chip showed a clear separation of the silicon from the aluminum. Because I think that that chip is the same as the others, it makes me wonder why Millette didn't find that same result. However, because Harrit and Jones tests showed that the behaviour of the chips is not consistent with paint and Millette didn't even try to test this, I give more weight to Harrit et al's findings.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 5th December 2012 at 12:40 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 12:43 PM   #1097
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. You asked me if I thought all the chips were essentially the same. I said I thought that is a very reasonable conclusion. I include the MEK chip in that assumption. The MEK chip showed a clear separation of the silicon from the aluminum. Because I think that that chip is the same as the others, it makes me wonder why Millette didn't find that same result. However, because Harrit and Jones tests showed that the behaviour of the chips is not consistent with paint and Millette didn't even try to test this, I give more weight to Harrit et al's findings.
Millette didn't HAVE to test the "behaviour of the chips". He examined them with more reliable means and determined that they were paint. What part of this are you still not getting? Harrit et al. claimed that they ran similar tests, but they never released the data. Why do you think that is?
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 5th December 2012, 12:46 PM   #1098
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, I'm not sure what you're not understanding. I think I've said pretty clearly that Millette did not go far enough in his analysis. Harrit and Jones did more tests than Millette did, and they also tested the behaviour of the chips.
No you are not clear at all, infact you are trying to deflect from your own conclusion that the material is not thermite.

Millette went way, way further than Harrit and Jones.

Why does the number of tests matter? Surely the right tests matter!

Millette used testing methods and machinery that definitively tell everybody exactly what the materials in the red chips are. He showed conclusively that the red layer contains epoxy, kaolin and iron oxide pigment. He also concludes the gray layer is oxidised steel (Harrit and Jones had no idea what the gray layer was).

You can perform 1000 tests, but if none of those methods are the right ones to use then they are pointless. Again if you read my posts from 3 1/2 years ago on the paper you will see that I criticise the testing methods as being inadequate, unambiguous and predictably inconclusive.

Why do you need to go further than proof?

If you think the FTIR data and the TEM-SAED from Millette does not show kaolin and epoxy then show your reasoning.
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 5th December 2012, 12:48 PM   #1099
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Millette didn't HAVE to test the "behaviour of the chips". He examined them with more reliable means and determined that they were paint. What part of this are you still not getting?
No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.

Quote:
Harrit et al. claimed that they ran similar tests, but they never released the data. Why do you think that is?
I think it's because in scientific publishing there are space limitations, and you have to make decisions about what findings you're going to present, and you'll probably choose the ones that you think are the most relevant and irrefutable.

As to why they haven't published their FTIR and TEM results somewhere else, I don't know. I wish they would, if it would help clarify the matter.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 12:53 PM   #1100
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Millette used testing methods and machinery that definitively tell everybody exactly what the materials in the red chips are. He showed conclusively that the red layer contains epoxy, kaolin and iron oxide pigment. He also concludes the gray layer is oxidised steel (Harrit and Jones had no idea what the gray layer was). . .

Why do you need to go further than proof?
If you read a few posts above, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of organic matrix in the mix. I think Harrit et al also acknowledge this.

So what new information does Millette bring? Nothing, as far I can see. Moreoever he didn't test the behaviour of the chips, instead stopping at his conclusion of paint - but without identifying what paint, since it's not Tnemec. Harrit et al did all the tests that Millette did and more.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 5th December 2012 at 12:55 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 12:54 PM   #1101
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.
That is your assertion, it is not "obvious", and at least one expert researcher disagrees with you. Fact is, the tests Millette did do definitely identified the material, and he could match it exactly to the type of paint if he had a known sample of said paint to compare it with. It does not compare to thermite, and wouldn't no matter how many DSC tests you did on it. DSC is not a material identification test.
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 5th December 2012, 01:06 PM   #1102
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
That is your assertion, it is not "obvious", and at least one expert researcher disagrees with you.
I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.

Quote:
Fact is, the tests Millette did do definitely identified the material,
No, they didn't. Read the study.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 01:11 PM   #1103
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.
And yours is?

Quote:
No, they didn't. Read the study.
Yes, they did. They may not have identified the exact brand of paint, but he definitively identified it as paint. An exact brand identification could be made if he was provided with a sample to match against. So what we know is, it is paint and it is not Tnemec.
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 5th December 2012, 01:29 PM   #1104
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you read a few posts above, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of organic matrix in the mix. I think Harrit et al also acknowledge this.

So what new information does Millette bring? Nothing, as far I can see. Moreoever he didn't test the behaviour of the chips, instead stopping at his conclusion of paint - but without identifying what paint, since it's not Tnemec. Harrit et al did all the tests that Millette did and more.
Millete brings completely new information IF you weren't reading what I was posting 3 1/2 years ago. Whereas I could only use my experience and show via logic that the material is paint, Millette actually did the science. His data and conclusion back me 100%.

Comparison between Millette, Sunstealer and Harrit et al.

Red Layer

Harrit et al - organic matrix, unknown hexagonal platelets, iron oxide
Sunstealer - possible epoxy, kaolin, rhombohedral Fe2O3 (iron oxide pigment)
Millette - epoxy, kaolin, iron oxide pigment.

Gray Layer

Harrit et al - iron oxide.
Sunstealer - Oxidised steel.
Millette - Carbon steel.

So Millette brings additional but more importantly conclusive information. If you cannot see this then you are blind.

Repeat after me:

Is red paint thermite? Is red paint thermite? Is red paint thermite?

If no, then why do you need to do further testing when you already know what the material is? You would be hammered in any lab if you continued to perform time consuming and expensive tests.

Why must you perform additional testing when you know conclusively with proof from data that the material is paint? What do you gain? Millette has answered the question so why must anybody go further? How would say putting the chip in sulphuric acid tell you anything more?

Q - what material is this?

A - paint.

Why must you do more when you have the answer?

Ergo - what does 4+4 =

If your answer is 8 then I want you to do more testing, more maths. Put the paper you wrote the answer on in a DSC to see if 8 is the answer.

Why must the specific paint type be identified? If the material is paint then it is NOT thermite so why must the type of paint be identified? Why is "It is NOT thermite" be enough?

You can go on forever asking for additional testing but there is no point. The object of the materials characterisation exercise has been found. How do you characterise the material even more when you know what it is?

Harrit et al did the wrong tests they did way less testing than Millette because they did the wrong testing. That is why they didn't discover that the material was paint.

Why oh why can you not understand this?

You have proven yourself that samples a-d are paint. Just admit that is the case.
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 5th December 2012, 01:41 PM   #1105
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
If the material is paint then it is NOT thermite
1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 01:42 PM   #1106
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,119
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And you have no access to a lab ??
What he means is it's not worth the effort, because it's a garbage premise.

If you think it's not garbage, you put your money where your mouth is like Chris Mohr did and pay a professional to test anything your little heart desires.

But don't expect others to do your work for you.
OCaptain 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 5th December 2012, 01:44 PM   #1107
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,119
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.
What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.
OCaptain 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 5th December 2012, 01:46 PM   #1108
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't think Millette has specializations in energetic materials or nano-anything, so I doubt his opinion is definitive on this matter.
What? Send the Harrit et al paper to any metallurgist or materials engineer and they will conclude the material is red paint. Send the Millette data to the same people. They will conclude the same as Millette or me or any other materials engineer.

You do not need to specialise in "energetic materials or nano-anything" to recognise the characteristics of kaolin.

Within minutes of reading the paper I was able to identify it. That's called experience. You do not need to specialise to identify a common material that is used in industry by the millions of tonnes.

Secondly you are saying that Millette's interpretation of the data is wrong. data CANNOT lie.

Show how Millette's FTIR data and TEM-SAED data does not support his conclusion that the material is paint. Show why the red layer doesn't contain kaolin.

Here is the relevant graph to help you.



You won't because you are hopelessly out of your depth and can only throw mud.



Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, they didn't. Read the study.
Yes they do! What are you arguing against?

Does Millette identify the hexagonal platelets as kaolin? Yes/No

Does Millette identify the organic matrix as epoxy? Yes/No

The above graph will help you.

Identifying the exact paint formulation does not mean that the material hasn't been identified.

The material has been identified it consists of epoxy, kaolin and rhombohedral iron oxide paint pigment.

You are playing at semantics and it doesn't wash. You yourself have stated indirectly, as I have shown, that the samples a-d are paint. Grow up and deal with finding out the truth for yourself.
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 5th December 2012, 01:49 PM   #1109
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.
Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:00 PM   #1110
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.
Reference? Show how a thin layer of paint equivalent to the thickness shown in Harrit et al can have any effect on steel. (Hint: Dr Greenman already did the calculation)

Show how the data that Millette provides shows any evidence of thermite. Where is the Al? Not there.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.
No Harrit's tests didn't rule out paint they proved paint. They showed that kaolin is present in the material.

If you think that kaolin is part of thermite then show your evidence for it.

If Millette assumed paint then explain why the material is made of epoxy, kaolin and iron oxide pigment and show how that fits in with a thermite material.

Millette assumed nothing - you are slurring him.

What test did Harrit and Jones perform on chips a, b, c and d to show they were not paint? Show detailed conclusive evidence for this. You can't.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.
Prove that statement. It's libellous.

You have no idea what Millette was looking for. Secondly Millette provides his data. Show why the data is wrong. Show how Millette has either mis-interpreted his data or falsified it or whatever. The data shows exactly what the material is, you just choose to poo-poo it to suit your agenda even though you yourself have shown that the samples a-d are paint.

You are being dishonest and you know it. You've been found out. You cannot deal with the fact that through your own logic and analysis you have concluded that the material is paint. Now you are trying to through up chaff to cover yourself, but you will never answer the questions I have put to you.
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 5th December 2012, 02:00 PM   #1111
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?
Complete title:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust
but You Would Not Know It by Looking at Our Study.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:02 PM   #1112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,535
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
1) I don't agree. The thermitic material could well be mixed in with paint or some similar organic matrix, a possibility Harrit et al also hypothesize.

2) Harrit et al's tests ruled out paint. Millette stopped at an assumption of paint. Harrit et al, further, tested the behaviour of the chips, which, incidentally was also inconsistent with paint. Millette cannot explain the behaviour of the chips, nor can he confirm those results because he didn't test for that.

I think the key here is that Millette was not looking for energetic materials. He was looking for paint. And lo' and behold, he found it.
No, Millette was looking for thermite. Thermite is what, ergo? -> A mix of a pure metal with a metal oxide. More specifically, in this case and per claims by Harrit e.al., a mix of elkemental Al and Fe2O3 in suitable proportions.

Questions to you (I'll provide the answers right away, you can agree, or disagree and state reasons):
  1. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip a? (No)
  2. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip b? (No)
  3. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip c? (No)
  4. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in chip d? (No)
  5. Did Millette identify elemental Al in any of the chips that you agree are the same material as chips a-d? (No)
  6. Did Harrit e.al. identify elemental Al in the MEK chip? (Yes, or so they interprete a certain data point)
  7. Did Harrit e.al. quantify the amount, in wt%, of elemental Al in the MEK chip? (No)
  8. Can the total Al-content in the MEK-chip be quantified, given the data presented by Harrit e.al.? (Yes, roughly)
  9. What is thetotal Al-content in the MEK-chip? (under 1% by weight, given Figure 14)
  10. Has anyone else quantified the total Al-content in any chip? (Yes, Mark Basile has. He put it at 1.3-1.7 wt%)
  11. Is the Al-content suitable vis-a-vis the Fe2O3 content for thermite? (No)
  12. Has anybody determined that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (No - that would require identifying the reaction products, which no one did)
  13. Has any chip been shown to contain thermite, by anybody? (No)
  14. Have any chip been shown to contain paint pigments? (Yes, chips a-d, and the chips that Millette determined to be similar to chips a-d)
  15. Have any chips been shown to contain a typical matrix material for paints? (Yes, Millette has shown this)
  16. Do any chips look like paint? (Yes, all of them)
  17. Are chips a-d and the Millette chips the same material? (Very probably yes)
  18. Has anyone identified elemental Al in them? (No)
  19. Has anyone ruled out elemental Al in them? (Yes, Millette has)
  20. Did Millette look specifically for elemental Al in his chips? (Yes)
  21. Did Harrit e.al. look specifically for elemental Al in chips a-d? (No)
  22. If a-d and Millette chips are the same material, and Millette chips contain no elemental Al, and Harrit e.al. showed no elemental Al in chips a-d, is there elemental Al in chips a-d? (No)
  23. If there is no elemental Al in chips a-d, are they thermitic? (No, by definition)



After you answered all of these, you should be closer to understanding, and maybe you can then ponder without guidance the last question:
  • Is the MEK chip the same material as chips a-d? (Not the same - it differs in many important respects: Different Al-Si ratio, Al and Si not bouind to each other, presence of several elements not found in chips a-d, most notably Zn, Mg and Ca), different layer thickness. However, it too, may be paint, with Tnemec being a plausible candidate)


And finally: I talked with Mark Basile on the phone about 2 weeks ago. He immediately agreed that of course the red gray chips are NOT all the same material - some are definitely really paint.
Oystein 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 5th December 2012, 02:07 PM   #1113
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Is that why it's called Active Thermitic Material Discovered in [World Trade Center] Dust?
That is a lie, they make up lies to fool their followers. They know their followers don't do chemistry and don't have critical thinking skills, that is why they blindly accept the title and ignore the fact the samples did not match thermite in energy, and the graph for thermite did not match the dust. 911 truth nuts like Jones use NAZI like names for their work to fool those who can't think for themselves.

They have a lie for a title, a few degrees, some PhDs, and people believe Jones' fantasy of thermite. With a little knowledge in logic, the paper is seen as fraud. This is why no one in the world has supported the paper and taken the results to a newspaper to earn a Pulitzer. There is no category for lies and woo in the Pulitzer Prize. Unless you are saying 911 truth is fiction. Are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_Fiction
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 5th December 2012, 02:09 PM   #1114
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by OCaptain View Post
What is hilarious (but sad) here is that you don't realize that Harrit, et al, ruled out thermite in their paper.
How could he? He is a truther that believes everything his masters tell him. He has no background in the subjects required to study the paper so he just parrots what his masters tell him.

He has no mind to actually examine what people who do have the knowledge to read, understand the data, and write a critique. It's like a baby being asked to pick the right answer between someone who says 2+2 = 4 and some who says 2+2 = potato. How can you pick one when you have no understanding of the number 2 (unless of course it's something you've done in your nappy/diaper)

He doesn't even believe his own simple logic (which is all that is required) to get the correct answer.

A single photo from Harrit et al debunks the paper:



He won't understand or acknowledge the logic behind why though. NB - ignore the label "kaolin" - it is correct but is not required to show why a thermite reaction never occurred. Hint: particles, proximity and temperature.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 5th December 2012 at 02:13 PM.
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 5th December 2012, 02:26 PM   #1115
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Reference?

Well, you already know this because you know someone did a calculation of what a thin layer of such a coating could do to steel. But here it is:

Originally Posted by Harrit et al., pg. 26
We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed ...

... the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint. The red chips we found in the WTC dust conform to their description of “thin films” of “hybrid inorganic/organic energetic nanocomposite”. Indeed, the descriptive terms “energetic coating” and “nice adherent film” fit very well with our observations of the red-chips which survived the WTC destruction.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Show how a thin layer of paint equivalent to the thickness shown in Harrit et al can have any effect on steel. (Hint: Dr Greenman already did the calculation)
Did you mean Greening here?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:29 PM   #1116
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, he didn't. When you're looking for energetic materials you obviously want to test the behaviour of the chips. Millette didn't do this.



I think it's because in scientific publishing there are space limitations, and you have to make decisions about what findings you're going to present, and you'll probably choose the ones that you think are the most relevant and irrefutable.

As to why they haven't published their FTIR and TEM results somewhere else, I don't know. I wish they would, if it would help clarify the matter.
It amazes me how the truth movement who are always asking questions, have never thought to ask their own movement any questions.
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 5th December 2012, 02:32 PM   #1117
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, you already know this because you know someone did a calculation of what a thin layer of such a coating could do to steel. But here it is:
Sorry I see no indication of any calculation in the text you posted,

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Did you mean Greening here?
Yes I do mean Greening - my slip. However, he did the calculation and it would not raise the temperature of the steel by any significant amount. You know this so why didn't you say so?

Care to answer any of my other questions from other posts? Don't worry you have another 3 1/2 years.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 5th December 2012 at 02:33 PM.
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 5th December 2012, 02:41 PM   #1118
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  1. Is the Al-content suitable vis-a-vis the Fe2O3 content for thermite? (No)
How about for nanothermite?


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  1. Has anybody determined that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (No - that would require identifying the reaction products, which no one did)
Iron-rich microspheres were identified, which are a product of thermite.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  1. Are chips a-d and the Millette chips the same material? (Very probably yes)

Are chips A - D the same as the chip soaked in MEK? Very probably, yes.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  1. Has anyone identified elemental Al in them? (No)

Yes, the MEK chip analysis suggested no other possibility.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
After you answered all of these, you should be closer to understanding, and maybe you can then ponder without guidance the last question:
I think that was an excellent summary of the bedunker argument with regard to red-grey chips. Thank you. As you can see above, I answered with regard to the MEK chip.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And finally: I talked with Mark Basile on the phone about 2 weeks ago. He immediately agreed that of course the red gray chips are NOT all the same material - some are definitely really paint.
Interesting. I guess he would also have to disagree with your conclusions in post #1089.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:44 PM   #1119
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Sorry I see no indication of any calculation in the text you posted,
You didn't ask for a calculation. You asked for a reference for Harrit and Jones' hypothesis about the thermitic material being embedded in a paint-like organic matrix.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2012, 02:47 PM   #1120
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
How about for nanothermite?
Err how is nano-thermite different?

The classic thermite equation is

Fe2O3 + 2Al --> Al2O3 + 2Fe

Is this equation different for nano-thermite? If so, show the equation.

Ergo's very question shows he has no idea what thermite is nor does he have any idea of basic chemistry. He obviously has no idea what the nano prefix means either
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
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 12:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.