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 Mark Basile

Reply
Old 26th September 2014, 07:50 PM   #81
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,467
Angry Humbug!

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Bump..........
I'm calling "shenanigans" on the whole thing.

It would take less than an hour to set up an ignition test under an inert atmosphere. If it doesn't ignite, you know it's not thermite, though you don't know exactly what it is. You announce your result and ask if your contributors want you to go on.

If it does ignite, you announce it! Even though you still don't know what it is, it passed the first test! Your contributors will be begging for more tests and will be chipping in dollars aplenty.

Humbug!

Last edited by Redwood; 26th September 2014 at 07:57 PM. Reason: emphasis
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2014, 07:51 PM   #82
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
I'm calling "shenanigans" on the whole thing.

It would take less than an hour to set up an ignition test under an inert atmosphere. If it doesn't ignite, you know it's not thermite, though you don't know exactly what it is. You announce your result and ask if your contributors want you to go on.

If it does ignite, you announce it! Even though you still don't know what it is, it passed the first test! Your contributors will be begging for more tests and will be chipping in dollars aplenty.

Humbug!
The study doesn't matter energetic composites
Of Al Fe203 in the dust would most likely be
Composites.natural to the towers.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2014, 11:35 PM   #83
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
This whole study is nothing but a joke. If it was a truly independent study the said chips would be collected and sent to a lab asking what the substance is. There is no need to tell them how they need to conduct the experiment.

The real out come is that some gullible people handed over 5k for nothing, which of course is nothing new for the truth movement.
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 18th October 2014, 03:40 AM   #84
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
This whole study is nothing but a joke. If it was a truly independent study the said chips would be collected and sent to a lab asking what the substance is. There is no need to tell them how they need to conduct the experiment.

The real out come is that some gullible people handed over 5k for nothing, which of course is nothing new for the truth movement.
Dr. Jones has made a critical flaw he is biased
The energetic chips mean nothing, he has to
Prove tbey are engineered not of natural origin.
I produced energetic dust from silicon carbide grinding
Wheels used on clean Iron then aluminum,
Then weathered naturally since 2009.
I achieved a thermitic reaction visible when
Heated.
The high melt metals form.nano spheres
In the cavities of the silicon carbide, the low
Melt metals form plates on the outside.
The steel nano spheres would oxides to form
Fe 203 cubes.
Natural thermitic chips that look like they
Were possibly engineered.
Structure does not.always imply design.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2014, 01:45 AM   #85
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Dr. Jones has made a critical flaw he is biased
The energetic chips mean nothing, he has to
Prove tbey are engineered not of natural origin.
I produced energetic dust from silicon carbide grinding
Wheels used on clean Iron then aluminum,
Then weathered naturally since 2009.
I achieved a thermitic reaction visible when
Heated.
The high melt metals form.nano spheres
In the cavities of the silicon carbide, the low
Melt metals form plates on the outside.
The steel nano spheres would oxides to form
Fe 203 cubes.
Natural thermitic chips that look like they
Were possibly engineered.
Structure does not.always imply design.
Did you take electron microscopy images? If yes, can you show us some? If not, how on earth do you know about nano-stuff in your probes??
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 19th October 2014, 04:22 AM   #86
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Did you take electron microscopy images? If yes, can you show us some? If not, how on earth do you know about nano-stuff in your probes??
No I can not take images.with my equipment,

The artifacts made by abrasive cutting are well
Documented.

High temperature melt metals like Iron form micro spheres
Or nano spheres.

Low temperature melt metals form platelets
All dependent on the fineness of the grit on
The cutting wheel.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2014, 08:09 AM   #87
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
No I can not take images.with my equipment,

The artifacts made by abrasive cutting are well
Documented.

Can you point me to such documentation? Ideally something on the internet, since that is where I can go to the easiest. A book or paper journal citation is also perfectly fine.

High temperature melt metals like Iron form micro spheres
Or nano spheres.

Low temperature melt metals form platelets
All dependent on the fineness of the grit on
The cutting wheel.
Ah ok, yes, I can believe that easily and think you are right.

But you said, on top of this:
"I produced energetic dust from silicon carbide grinding Wheels used on clean Iron then aluminum, Then weathered naturally since 2009. I achieved a thermitic reaction visible when Heated."
I wonder how you could tell that what YOU produced showed a "thermitic" reaction? How do you know it's not iron dust simply igniting on ambient air? Or perhaps Al-dust? Did you do your tests under inert gas?


Tell you what: Why don't you document for us step by step what you did - and what you observed, and how you observed it? Describe the experiment design, and present data rather than merely verbal descriptions?
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 19th October 2014, 09:50 AM   #88
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ah ok, yes, I can believe that easily and think you are right.

But you said, on top of this:
"I produced energetic dust from silicon carbide grinding Wheels used on clean Iron then aluminum, Then weathered naturally since 2009. I achieved a thermitic reaction visible when Heated."
I wonder how you could tell that what YOU produced showed a "thermitic" reaction? How do you know it's not iron dust simply igniting on ambient air? Or perhaps Al-dust? Did you do your tests under inert gas?


Tell you what: Why don't you document for us step by step what you did - and what you observed, and how you observed it? Describe the experiment design, and present data rather than merely verbal descriptions?
You can not mistake a thermite reaction half as hot as
The sun twice the brightness.

That is how you recognize it oxidizing Iron
Is not as bright.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2014, 02:06 PM   #89
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
You can not mistake a thermite reaction half as hot as
The sun twice the brightness.
Aww don't misunderestimate me! Oh how I am able to mistake one reaction for another!!
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
That is how you recognize it oxidizing Iron
Is not as bright.
Brightness - as measured in lumen? lux? candela? Wouldn't that also be a function of probe mass?
You got calibrated eyes?

All I read here is that you don't have the evidence and I just have to trust your superior eye sight.
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 19th October 2014, 02:31 PM   #90
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Aww don't misunderestimate me! Oh how I am able to mistake one reaction for another!!

Brightness - as measured in lumen? lux? candela? Wouldn't that also be a function of probe mass?
You got calibrated eyes?

All I read here is that you don't have the evidence and I just have to trust your superior eye sight.
It also ignited under.argon gas not air by the
Way I do not believe iron will oxidize in argon.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2014, 02:42 PM   #91
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
It also ignited under.argon gas not air by the
Way I do not believe iron will oxidize in argon.
Well good that you say that now! Was I supposed to know you did it under argon?
I have no idea what your equipment was, and what you did!
And WHAT exactly ignited there.

Why don't you write up some sort of paper that describes your experiments? Abstract, objectives, methods, equipment, materials, tests done, results and data, discussion, conclusions?
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 19th October 2014, 04:18 PM   #92
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Well good that you say that now! Was I supposed to know you did it under argon?
I have no idea what your equipment was, and what you did!
And WHAT exactly ignited there.

Why don't you write up some sort of paper that describes your experiments? Abstract, objectives, methods, equipment, materials, tests done, results and data, discussion, conclusions?
I am just a Layman Oystein there is no reason
For me to publish anything, and
I most likely am wrong.
Me publish who would read it?
I never wanted to be part of this debate,
I just wanted to blow stuff up and have
Fun.
Dr. Greening talked me into
Staying in it and I really wish
I hadn't listened.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 26th October 2014, 02:10 PM   #93
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Basile's progress report is up and somewhat underwhelming:
I never saw this Project Status Report August 2014 by Mark Basile until just now. Must have been blind...

On his own website, it's http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/stud...ugust_2014.pdf

Yes, underwhelming.

I have two major problems with this report:

1.) Which criteria?
Basile writes: "A number of chips have been screened, but more need to be evaluated. The goal here is to find the best candidates for outside facility work."
But by what criteria does he decide which chip specimen are "the best" candidates? Can't be thermal test, as those tend to destroy the specimen.

2.) Old images
He writes: "I presently have seven samples of World Trade Center dust and am going through the material screening for particles of interest. Five samples have been screened completely. Two are still ongoing and expected to be completed in about a month. A number of the samples have red/gray chips of various size and composition using EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) for analytical comparison. Some images are attached as Figures 1a through 1d which show chips from a few of the samples". This sounds as if the attached images were from his recent and ongoing work towards selecting chips for future lab testing.
However, image 1d is the same chip he already presented in 2010 as his "lucky chip #13" (near the 39:00 minutes mark). Consequently, images 2a and 2b were also already part of his 2010 presentation: At 46:30 and 43:08 in the video.
I am not claiming he is trying to deceive, but I have slight doubts if images 1a-1c represent current and ongoing work.


ETA:

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Have any of you looked at "Proposal for Labs to Study the Building Fire Dust" in the website http:\\markbasile.org? He's talking about a blind analysis with FTIR and DSC with and without oxygen in the atmosphere. If this really happens the results will be interesting. Certainly things not done by the Jones/Harrit team.
I wonder more and more what the reason is to do a DSC test. The data that a DSC test delivers is a series of heat flows (expressed in W/g) measured as a sample is heated (or cooled) to specified temperatures. I don't see that Harrit e.al. use the data at all to support their conclusion of "active thermitic material". Yes, the exotherm peaks and total heat releases definitely speak for an exotherm chemical reaction, but the nature thereof is not determined from the DSC data. To do so, they would have to compare their data to some references, and specify the criteria by which that comparison be done. Is it the peak hight? The peak temerature? The peak width? Any other features (location and magnitude) along the curves? They never discuss this. They show a comparison of one chip with one example (Tillotson and Gash) of actual nanothermite in Fig. 29, and apparently the mere existence of the comparison is designed to suggest to the reader that the curves are somehow similar - but they don't even claim they are similar!
So, if Basile gets DSC-data from an independent lan, showing exotherm peaks - what's he gonna do with them? What are tjhe criteria to conclude thermite or no-thermite; or paint/no paint? I don't see there exist any.
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Oystein once said Mark was one of the most honest of the 9/11 Truth people, and I have not seen any evidence yet to contradict Oystein's opinion.
I stand by that opinion, but advise you that this is a matter of my personal opinion, and I base that on little more than gut feeling. I like to believe I have a talent for reading physiognomy, but understand that that's considered a pseudoscience.

Last edited by Oystein; 26th October 2014 at 02:34 PM.
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 26th October 2014, 02:27 PM   #94
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I never saw this Project Status Report August 2014 by Mark Basile until just now. Must have been blind...

On his own website, it's http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/stud...ugust_2014.pdf

Yes, underwhelming.

I have two major problems with this report:

1.) Which criteria?
Basile writes: "A number of chips have been screened, but more need to be evaluated. The goal here is to find the best candidates for outside facility work."
But by what criteria does he decide which chip specimen are "the best" candidates? Can't be thermal test, as those tend to destroy the specimen.

2.) Old images
He writes: "I presently have seven samples of World Trade Center dust and am going through the material screening for particles of interest. Five samples have been screened completely. Two are still ongoing and expected to be completed in about a month. A number of the samples have red/gray chips of various size and composition using EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) for analytical comparison. Some images are attached as Figures 1a through 1d which show chips from a few of the samples". This sounds as if the attached images were from his recent and ongoing work towards selecting chips for future lab testing.
However, image 1d is the same chip he already presented in 2010 as his "lucky chip #13" (near the 39:00 minutes mark). Consequently, images 2a and 2b were also already part of his 2010 presentation: At 46:30 and 43:08 in the video.
I am not claiming he is trying to deceive, but I have slight doubts if images 1a-1c represent current and ongoing work.
Why doesn't he just send the chips that make it through the selection criteria in the Harrit paper? They all were all "thermetic" right?
__________________
"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 26th October 2014, 02:38 PM   #95
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why doesn't he just send the chips that make it through the selection criteria in the Harrit paper? They all were all "thermetic" right?
Good question! In an interview almost 2 years ago, Basile said that many of the "red" chips are actually paint after all, even some that Jones had studied. I am not sure if he meant or included "red-gray" chips in that statement.

Perhaps he has by now figured out additional criteria that enable him to predict which chips will react "vigorously" and/or create roundish, iron-rich residue particles? I'd be interested to learn these criteria!
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 26th October 2014, 02:51 PM   #96
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Good question! In an interview almost 2 years ago, Basile said that many of the "red" chips are actually paint after all, even some that Jones had studied. I am not sure if he meant or included "red-gray" chips in that statement.

Perhaps he has by now figured out additional criteria that enable him to predict which chips will react "vigorously" and/or create roundish, iron-rich residue particles? I'd be interested to learn these criteria!
You would think the Harrit study would have found some of these "non-energetic" chips and reported data as a control. I guess the paper would have been too long if they included that.
__________________
"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 26th October 2014, 03:52 PM   #97
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I never saw this Project Status Report August 2014 by Mark Basile until just now. Must have been blind...

On his own website, it's http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/stud...ugust_2014.pdf

Yes, underwhelming.

I have two major problems with this report:

1.) Which criteria?
Basile writes: "A number of chips have been screened, but more need to be evaluated. The goal here is to find the best candidates for outside facility work."
But by what criteria does he decide which chip specimen are "the best" candidates? Can't be thermal test, as those tend to destroy the specimen.

2.) Old images
He writes: "I presently have seven samples of World Trade Center dust and am going through the material screening for particles of interest. Five samples have been screened completely. Two are still ongoing and expected to be completed in about a month. A number of the samples have red/gray chips of various size and composition using EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) for analytical comparison. Some images are attached as Figures 1a through 1d which show chips from a few of the samples". This sounds as if the attached images were from his recent and ongoing work towards selecting chips for future lab testing.
However, image 1d is the same chip he already presented in 2010 as his "lucky chip #13" (near the 39:00 minutes mark). Consequently, images 2a and 2b were also already part of his 2010 presentation: At 46:30 and 43:08 in the video.
I am not claiming he is trying to deceive, but I have slight doubts if images 1a-1c represent current and ongoing work.


ETA:



I wonder more and more what the reason is to do a DSC test. The data that a DSC test delivers is a series of heat flows (expressed in W/g) measured as a sample is heated (or cooled) to specified temperatures. I don't see that Harrit e.al. use the data at all to support their conclusion of "active thermitic material". Yes, the exotherm peaks and total heat releases definitely speak for an exotherm chemical reaction, but the nature thereof is not determined from the DSC data. To do so, they would have to compare their data to some references, and specify the criteria by which that comparison be done. Is it the peak hight? The peak temerature? The peak width? Any other features (location and magnitude) along the curves? They never discuss this. They show a comparison of one chip with one example (Tillotson and Gash) of actual nanothermite in Fig. 29, and apparently the mere existence of the comparison is designed to suggest to the reader that the curves are somehow similar - but they don't even claim they are similar!
So, if Basile gets DSC-data from an independent lan, showing exotherm peaks - what's he gonna do with them? What are tjhe criteria to conclude thermite or no-thermite; or paint/no paint? I don't see there exist any.

I stand by that opinion, but advise you that this is a matter of my personal opinion, and I base that on little more than gut feeling. I like to believe I have a talent for reading physiognomy, but understand that that's considered a pseudoscience.
It looks like they are trying to determine chip
Structural elements as well as if the chips are thermitic.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 1st November 2014, 06:24 AM   #98
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Oystein,
The two things that Basile is talking about doing that I find "interesting" are 1) Actually releasing any FTIR data he collects and 2) heating up his "chips of interest" in a non-oxygenated environment. Those are two pieces of data that have so far not been created (oops, I mean not released to the public) by someone in 9/11 Truth. And both of these can shed some new light on the chips. You're right, the DSC data from burning in in air will be a useless repetition and tell us nothing new.
__________________
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 1st November 2014, 09:09 AM   #99
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Oystein,
The two things that Basile is talking about doing that I find "interesting" are 1) Actually releasing any FTIR data he collects and 2) heating up his "chips of interest" in a non-oxygenated environment. Those are two pieces of data that have so far not been created (oops, I mean not released to the public) by someone in 9/11 Truth. And both of these can shed some new light on the chips. You're right, the DSC data from burning in in air will be a useless repetition and tell us nothing new.
Chris,

I questioned why they are doing DSC, as they don't use the DSC data to advance their hypothesis.

Your point 2) talks about "heating up chips", but DSC is not just "heating up chips", it is "heating up chips plus collecting thermodynamics data along the way".

But they don't use the data.
So why do they demand that Millette, or Basile, or anyone, do DSC?

They kinda pretend they use the data, for example when they claim that the chips "ignite" near 415 °C - but even with such a simple statement, there are two problems already:
1. two of the chips (the black and green curve) don't "ignite" (i.e. start to oxidize) near 415 °C, they ignite much earlier
2. this ignition temperature is neither typical nor characteristic for thermitic materials. It tells you next to nothing if you want to "prove" nanothermite

Next they pretend to compare their DSC-curves with that of real nanothermite, and again, this raises a few questions without answering one:
1. By what criteria would they do a comparison of curves, anyway?
2. The curves are not similar in any meaningful way

And then they pretend that the high total energy release sort of speaks for their theory, as in "releases more energy than conventional explosives", but again, that "use" of the data is highly misleading:
1. The chips aren't explosive, so why compare with explosives anyway?
2. The high energy output is their biggest problem really, as it is not possible to construct a "thermitic"material with such high outputs; even if you allow for an "energetic" organic component.

My argument here (last point) is a bit complicated, but the short version is:
  • An organic material can release this much energy without embedded oxidizer, but then it reacts on its surface only with available oxygen from air, and that would not deserve the label "thermitic" or "highly energetic"
  • If on the other you mix any organic material with an appropriate amount of any solid oxidizing agent, it would be highly reactive and could potentially tailored into a powerful explosive or fast-reacting incendiary (that's what some rocket propellants are made of), but it can be shown that the resulting composite material (organics+oxidizer) will have an energy density lower than what Harrit's DSC data showed.
  • Conclusion: The organic matrix can't be a pyrotechnic material as they suggest


Their entire "DSC" argument rests on the supposed residue - the supposedly "molten" iron dropplets that cooled to become spheres. To get this residue, you don't need to do a DSC-Test, you can have that cheaper by just igniting the chip any way you like.


There can of course be value to a DSC Test in the frame of Basile's test proposel, IF he manages to have the very same chip subjected both to methods that unequivocally ID every component, AND reacts the way they want it to react. But that isn't easy: You can't isolate all components without releasing or freeing the enclosed particles/pigments; you have to "destroy" the material to get at them. But then you can't sensibly ignite the thing.


UNLESS you have a chip large enough to cut it into two or more pieces that are in turn large enough to yield good results with the various methods. Then you could run the ID-Tests (FTIR...) on one half, and thermal tests (DSC...) on the other.
Ideally, there'd be one chip that
- Contains Al only as silicate
- Fe only as oxide
- mundane organic matrix without further additives
- gray layer only the usual iron oxide stuff with only traces of C, Mn
AND
- shows a nice exotherm in DSC similar to Fig 19 in Harrut e.al.
AND
- has spherical, iron-bearing particles in the residue
AND
- Basile can't find Al-oxide

Then that would prove that mundane paint can react and form those spheres, without any thermitic reaction at all.


I am doubtful that Basile has his experiment design down to be able to get this sort of result, and anything short of it will be spun by truthers into oblivion.

Oh, and actually, even if he gets the full result as I describe above, they'll still find ways to talk their way out of the total defeat!
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 1st November 2014, 09:33 AM   #100
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Oh, and actually, even if he gets the full result as I describe above, they'll still find ways to talk their way out of the total defeat!
They just claim it's the wrong chip. It doesn't mater if it's chemically identical. It's wrong if it's not declared "thermite".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2014, 03:58 PM   #101
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
I guess there's still no progress.

I wonder whatever happened to the $1000 that was awarded after the "physics challenge".

It was there one day and no trace the next.

ETA:

Quote:
Dr. Griscom won by default and was awarded the $1000 prize, which he donated towards further experiments being done on the WTC dust (see: markbasile.org), to see if the 2009 Bentham study results are repeatable. (Replication is fundamental to the scientific method.)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...cs-debate.html

I'm thinking the check bounced.
__________________
"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; 9th December 2014 at 04:14 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 12th December 2014, 11:53 PM   #102
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Seriously? Mr Basile still hasn't done the study? This has become a charade; I was actually hoping he'd do it and publish the damn results!
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 13th December 2014, 01:13 AM   #103
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Seriously? Mr Basile still hasn't done the study? This has become a charade; I was actually hoping he'd do it and publish the damn results!
The whole thing is fantasy, if any of the truth movement had the magical thermite chips they would publish the results.

They don't and can't.

At least the $5000 was raised and that was the goal achieved.
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 13th December 2014, 10:17 AM   #104
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Seriously? Mr Basile Jim Millette still hasn't done the study?

This has become a charade; I was actually hoping he'd do it and publish the damn results!
At least Mark Basile has good reasons for progressing slowly.

Unlike Millette, Mark doesn't own his own lab along with a supply of U.S. government provided 9/11 WTC dust.

Of course the apologists for Millette here quite willingly accept his short comings as long as his beliefs continue to support theirs.

Too funny...and pathetic.
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 13th December 2014, 10:27 AM   #105
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Too funny...and pathetic.
I see you never questioned what happened to the $1000 Mark supposedly got from the "Physics challenge". Here I was thinking you guys were all open about accountability.
__________________
"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 13th December 2014, 10:28 AM   #106
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Whereas in contrast Harrit and Jones have received widespread acclaim and endorsement among the relevant scientific disciplines.

Oh, wait...
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2014, 10:35 AM   #107
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
[color=blue]At least Mark Basile has good reasons for progressing slowly.
Yep, he has no samples to test.

I guess that's what happens when you burn what you had.

Yes it's pathetic
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 13th December 2014, 10:38 AM   #108
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
This could be a problem................
http://markbasile.org/?nr=0
Quote:
Notice: This domain name expired on 12/10/14 and is pending renewal or deletion


Makes you wonder what they did with the $6000.
__________________
"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 13th December 2014, 10:45 AM   #109
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
From March:

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Does anyone else find it interesting that the "Physics challenge" prize sponsored by A.N.E.T.A was donated to a study that A.N.E.T.A was the chief promoter? Everyone does know that markbasile.org is owned by A.N.E.T.A.?
__________________
"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 13th December 2014, 10:47 AM   #110
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
At least Mark Basile has good reasons for progressing slowly.

Unlike Millette, Mark doesn't own his own lab along with a supply of U.S. government provided 9/11 WTC dust.

Of course the apologists for Millette here quite willingly accept his short comings as long as his beliefs continue to support theirs.

Too funny...and pathetic.
Just out of interest, how long do you think it should take to send some dust samples to an independent Lab ?
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 13th December 2014, 11:47 AM   #111
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
... Too funny...and pathetic.
The failed lie of thermite is pathetic, not funny.

What did Mark do with the money? Like Gage, Mark can't do the study, it will ruin the big lie. The Jones paper proved no thermite, how will Mark fake his results to fool the fringe few thermite 911 truth faith based believers.
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 14th December 2014, 04:59 AM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Yep, he has no samples to test.
...
Not true, according to the "Mark Basile Progress Report, August 2014", which was still the latest bit of information several days ago when I last visited the non-expired site. It started thusly:

Quote:
I presently have seven samples of World Trade Center dust and am going through the material screening for particles of interest. Five samples have been screened completely. Two are still ongoing and expected to be completed in about a month.

A number of the samples have red/gray chips of various size and composition
using EDX (energy dispersive x-ray) for analytical comparison.
HOWEVER, he continues right away, stating:
Quote:
Some images are attached as Figures 1a through 1d which show chips from a few of the samples with scale bars to show the size range of the chips being found
The problem here is that Figre 1d shows the very same chip that he already presented prominently - and burned! - back in hois 2010 video. To the left Fig 1d, to the right a snapshot from the 2010 video (click to enlarge):



This kinda diminishes my trust that the other figures show new and presently available material.

Here they are anyway, for posteriority:




Now, he said that by September, he should have finished sifting visually through all of his samples and have separated all red-gray chips therein.

He then proposed to continue thusly:

FIRST
Quote:
Once visual screening and sorting is completed the red/gray chips will be evaluated for the presence of reactivity with production of molten iron. ... A number of chips have been screened, but more need to be evaluated. The goal here is to find the best candidates for outside facility work.

The thermal screen test has been changed from my early system which was a stainless steel resistive heater strip that could heat the particles being screened, to a small tube furnace where the chips in a container are heated to 450 degrees C in air or nitrogen.
So: He proposes to BURN samples before sending them off to a lab - and to NOT analyze (and perhaps not even report on!) the chips that don't react!?
(In fairness I should add that I remember him saying - don't have a source, I think he told me directly the one time when I called him on the phone - that one could split one chip in two, if two different sets of tests need to be done)


And THEN:
Quote:
Once the best candidates are found, work will move to the phase where funds will be expended using independent facilities. Once funds begin to be spent monthly accountings will be made, no funds have been spent and all will be accounted for publicly.
This would mean NONE of the money has been spent yet. A source of delay may be this:
Quote:
I am interested in obtaining as many samples as possible. Anyone interested in donating a sample can contact dust4evidence@gmail.com to discuss your sample. If after the discussion phase your sample is to be accepted for work then shipping information will be provided.
IF someone contacted him, offering more dust, THEN conceivably he may delay the lab phase until he has received and sifted through additional samples.
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 14th December 2014, 08:24 AM   #113
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
”…The problem here is that Figure 1d shows the very same chip that he already presented prominently - and burned! - back in his 2010 video. …This kinda diminishes my trust that the other figures show new and presently available material… He proposes to BURN samples before sending them off to a lab - and to NOT analyze (and perhaps not even report on!) the chips that don't react!?

I should add that I remember him saying - …that one could split one chip in two, if two different sets of tests need to be done)

…This would mean NONE of the money has been spent yet. ..”
I’ll cut to the chase.

You acknowledge that Mark Basile has 9/11 WTC dust.

You are upset that Mark did not use new photography from his latest work.

Like the caption says, the selected photographs are used because they represent the typical appearance of candidate 9/11 WTC dust chips before they are ignited.

Photographs are not test results.

You then fake an argument that Mark Basile needs to have his selected chips pre-analyzed by an independent lab before they are ignited.

That is rendered as total bs when you quickly recall a direct communication with Mark Basile where he clearly informed you that he was able to preserve half of a candidate chip.

The rest of your post is rambling speculation that simply ignores the fact that Mark’s research, by necessity, is part time.

Like the rest of us, Mark Basile has to devote a lot of his time to making a living wage.
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 14th December 2014, 08:33 AM   #114
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,633
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Like the rest of us, Mark Basile has to devote a lot of his time to making a living wage.
Not if the money to do the promised work was raised in advance and given to him. Then that would be his wage and he should do the work.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2014, 10:35 AM   #115
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
If he has the chips, independent lab and the money, why not just send them off and get them analysed.

He doesn't need to do any more than that if it is a truly independent analysis.

how many years should this take ?
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 14th December 2014, 11:31 AM   #116
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
If he has the chips, independent lab and the money, why not just send them off and get them analysed.

He doesn't need to do any more than that if it is a truly independent analysis.

how many years should this take ?
The problem is they have no defined chip selection criteria that guarantees the chips are the correct ones. The Harrit paper is so poorly done that it can not be reproduced. This has been proven by the fact no one to date has been able to duplicate the results.

I don't think this is by mistake. Harrit has the definitive data but refuses to release it. Whatever happens with the Basile study doesn't matter, they always have the "wrong chips" out.
__________________
"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; 14th December 2014 at 11:32 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 14th December 2014, 01:24 PM   #117
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I’ll cut to the chase.
What's your freaking problem, dude??
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You acknowledge that Mark Basile has 9/11 WTC dust.
Yes, I acknowledge he has, what's your damned problem?
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You are upset that Mark did not use new photography from his latest work.
What is your FSM-damned problem, silly? No, I am not upset at that at all, I just notice and point out!
Perhaps it's poor writing and/or editing, but to me the text I quoted sounds as if he says he is showing current samples, because the immediate context contains zero references to past work, it only talks about his ongoing work of finding new chips in the sampled he has.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Like the caption says, the selected photographs are used because they represent the typical appearance of candidate 9/11 WTC dust chips before they are ignited.
Do you have reading comprehension problems, boy??
No, neither the captions (I did not quote from the captions) nor the text I quoted nor any other passage of this status report say this at all.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Photographs are not test results.
And where is the problem with this? Why do you make up strawmen? I didn't claim at all that they are!
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You then fake an argument that Mark Basile needs to have his selected chips pre-analyzed by an independent lab before they are ignited.
Huh? I don't get your problem! What the hell are you talking about??
We all want the chips to simply be analyzed by an independent lab! I don't want them pre-analyzed at all! Not by a lab, and absolutely NOT by Mark Basile!

Tell me, MM, why should he discard chips that don't ignite, and keep from us any analytical results from those? Such as what they are, how they differ from those that ignite, and what proportion burns and doesn't burn?

Or don't you agree that the red-gray chips aren't all the same material??
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
That is rendered as total bs when you quickly recall a direct communication with Mark Basile where he clearly informed you that he was able to preserve half of a candidate chip.
What went wrong with you?? Problematic childhood?

You don't get it. I remember something from 2 or 3 years ago. But it would be "rambling speculation" if I assumed that this is his plan, as he does not mention this in the test proposal and does not mention this in the status report - at all! I mentioned this to be FAIR to good old Mark! Now, do you want me to go on rambling speculations? I guess not, because...
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The rest of your post is rambling speculation that simply ignores the fact that Mark’s research, by necessity, is part time.

Like the rest of us, Mark Basile has to devote a lot of his time to making a living wage.
You are full of probems you need to address, consulting perhaps certain professionals. Listen, did you not get it, did you really fail so badly at reading comprehension, that in the paragraph you are refering here to I am actually DEFENDING Basile? Or are you being nasty on purpose? You certainly do remember that I have more than once defended Basile here in the past!? (And I will again in a following post! I hope you'll give credit where credit is due!)

Last edited by Oystein; 14th December 2014 at 01:27 PM.
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 14th December 2014, 01:30 PM   #118
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not if the money to do the promised work was raised in advance and given to him. Then that would be his wage and he should do the work.
Incorrect.

Basile won't keep any of the money as compensation, he contributes his own work for free.
All the money is intended to cover expenses Basile will incur, particularly the lab fees.
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 14th December 2014, 01:36 PM   #119
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,542
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
If he has the chips, independent lab and the money, why not just send them off and get them analysed.

He doesn't need to do any more than that if it is a truly independent analysis.
This, exactly this.

Mark Basile should tell everybody clearly and equivocally - the independent lab, us, truthers, Harrit, Jones and the rest of the gang:

Red-gray chips pulled from WTC-dust with a magnet are several different materials, with different elemental compositions, that will react differently when heated. Please keep this FACT in mind when analysing chips or interpreting other people's analysis!!

We need to know the composition of all the different kinds of chips - those that do ignite, and those that don't! Only if we look at ALL the chips can we be certain what they ALL are! Only then will there be clarity and peace (and Harrit, Jones and the gang will be served the ridicule that befits their astounding level of shame).
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 15th December 2014, 06:55 AM   #120
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Not if the money to do the promised work was raised in advance and given to him. Then that would be his wage and he should do the work.
I don't think this is accurate. My guess is that he has collected only enough to cover the costs of lab tests, no wages for himself personally. I too get in heat for being too slow... for example, earlier this year, I tried to get someone to analyze campfire ash (still waiting) and to try to get answers from fire chemists about iron-rich spheres (great answers but it took seven months or so). And of course the two years or more I have been waiting for Jim Millette to put out a published paper, something MM and others have repeatedly taunted me about. But Millette is now a "volunteer" unless we come up with thousands more $$$s, as are almost all of us.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 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.