ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 6th March 2012, 08:10 AM   #41
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Here's one exchange on AboveTopSecret
Ya see, that's where you went sideways and south from the start!

Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:13 AM   #42
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Cadre of scientists discussing Millette's SEM-EDS, FTIR,TEM,SAED,LTA, FLIR,ETM results.







Harrit and Jones discussing with Farrer the DSC protocol and results.

__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 6th March 2012 at 08:37 AM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:26 AM   #43
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Wow it sure is nice here in Cabo San Lucas! Wish you were here!



Hey, why did Oystein get all the credit?
I had crossed blades with that poster, SnowCrash, at the 911forum before. I guess I got too close to his bone. He is not unreasonable and quite intelligent and has already understood that much of the evidence truthers advance in support of CD doesn't actually support CD. But deep down in his heart, he just KNOWS it was CD - somehow. It appears that he WANTS to believe in thermite, because he has already understood that explosives won't carry the day. So he has this need and urge to portray those who challenge that believe as somehow evil.
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Hilited it for you.
Hehe.
It has happened perhaps twice before that I was perceived as Jewish based on the suffix of my internet handle, even though "Oystein" is in fact an old nordic name - you can hardy get more Norse than that! Of course I am neither Jewish nor Norse, and I don't mean to pretend to be either. There is a personal story behind my choice of that name that has nothing at all to do with my preferences in culture or religion.

However, I have not perceived SnowCrash to be motivated by anti-semitism. I consider your post a joke
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 6th March 2012, 08:30 AM   #44
NutCracker
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 654
+1

A Solvay congress, wasn't it? Humble figures like Curie, Rutherford, Lorentz.... and a bloke called Einstein.
NutCracker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:41 AM   #45
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
BTW, has anyone noticed what a surprisingly high percentage of posters on various 9/11 blogs are at least partially supportive of the Millette study? Also, when people make weird accusations they get quickly corrected too. We can expect the hard-cores to be unswayed and some to even resort to ad hominem attacks (as they have, in spades) but what surprises me is that they don't completely dominate the blogs with poisonous attacks.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:42 AM   #46
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
Ya see, that's where you went sideways and south from the start!

Fitz
Hehe, I especially like this comment of Millette study on Abovetopsecret, written by Glargod:

"Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.

totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain


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 6th March 2012, 08:47 AM   #47
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
He carried the credit away in a beer mug?
Those sneaky Germans!

Although it is a good point. More than a few posters have pointed out the (presumably evil) "German JREFer" as being all the evidence they need to dismiss the results of the study. However, it is always nice to know what side the bigots, racists, and other ignorant goofballs are on. That way, I can make certain not to be on that side.

Jones's admission that he's not doing 9/11 research anymore is really telling. I mean, cold fusion was garbage, but at least he was being paid for it. It's clear that this noble crusader for the "truth" doesn't really think it's worth his time anymore.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:54 AM   #48
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Cadre of scientists discussing Millette's SEM-EDS, FTIR,TEM,SAED,LTA, FLIR,ETM results.

I spotted Albert Einstein immediately, so I researched a minute. We see the participants of the Solvay Conference (1911), and other well-known geniuses are in the photo, too (year of Nobel Prize in parentheses):
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1902, physics), seated, 4th from left
Marie Curie (1903, physics and 1911, chemistry), seated, 2nd from right
Henri Poincaré, seated, 1st from right
Max Planck (1918, physics), standing, 2nd from left
Maurice de Broglie, standing, 5th from left (pioneerd X-ray diffraction spectroscopy!)
Ernest Rutherford (1908, chemistry), standing, 4th from right
Albert Einstein (1921, physics)

Other who went on to become Nobel laureats that I don't even know are
Walther Nernst (1920, chemistry)
Jean Baptiste Perrin (1926, physics)
Wilhelm Wien (1911, physics)
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (1913, physics)

What an impressive line-up! Arnold Sommerfeld never won the Nobel prize, but was nominated 81 (1) times, and, more importantly, was doctoral advisor to several Nobel laureates, including Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Hans Bethe, Peter Debye.
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 6th March 2012, 08:55 AM   #49
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Dr. Jones View Post
My best wishes to the 9/11 truth community. FYI, my main research focus at this time remains on seeking alternative energy sources for the benefit of mankind.
Why does he bother? Doesn't he know his discovery will simply be co-opted by the NWO, so it can be used to secretly vaporize skyscrapers?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 09:02 AM   #50
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
blah, blah, blah, appeal to authority, name dropping
I'll put your supposed experts up against Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, and Dr. Howard any day of the week.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 07:30 PM   #51
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Here's another blog Debunking the Debunkers:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/
Notice the certainty of his position before even seeing the study.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 07:33 PM   #52
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Another blog:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...2dfebbb55a3be8
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 07:38 PM   #53
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,725
Quote:
You see, I'm absolutely convinced that there are only two possible explanations for the data in the Harrit et al paper:

1.The red/gray chips are nanothermite.

2.The data is fraudulent.

Those are the only two possibilities. Accepting the data as real, there is absolutely no way it can be reconciled with any theory other than nanothermite.... So either the data is real and the red material is nanothermite, or it isn't nanothermite and Harrit, Jones, Farrer et al are scientific frauds.
Or, the data is real, it never showed it was nanothermite in the first place, and Harrit, Jones, Farrer et al are scientific frauds because they lied and said it was nanothermite when their own data said it wasn't.

Quote:
In summary, there are several upsides to Dr Millette's work:
...
4.He's debunked the primer paint hypothesis:
"At the time of this progress report, the identity of the product from which the red/gray chips were generated has not been determined. The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers."
Do truthers deliberately ignore the fact that there were far more than just one or two formulas of primer painted used in the wtc complex?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 6th March 2012 at 07:43 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:39 PM   #54
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...212725&page=86

Start at post 3435. This of course is the ultimate response, from Kevin Ryan's DigWithin blog. Could someone tell me if my last post on here rebutting the Cate Jenkins assertion etc. is readable by you? It's been "awaiting moderation" for over a week.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 11:41 PM   #55
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...212725&page=86

Start at post 3435. This of course is the ultimate response, from Kevin Ryan's DigWithin blog. Could someone tell me if my last post on here rebutting the Cate Jenkins assertion etc. is readable by you? It's been "awaiting moderation" for over a week.
Chris: What do you mean by "last post"? I see there your 3 long posts on the "Cate Jenkins matter". Do not spend so much time on this marginal matter, Chris, at least now
I think, looking at the reactions of the smarter truthers, that they have mostly little suspicions that Jim Millette has done some deceptive work.
I think that it happened what was expected here in JREF: Jim Millette's samples of dust simply look authentic, as well as the red-gray chips, he reasonably explained their origin etc.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 7th March 2012 at 01:34 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 7th March 2012, 04:49 AM   #56
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
The irony is that Jones et al could have had us thinking…….if only they had given their little scheme a bit more thought. They weren’t smart enough to get their lies straight from the outset. Baffling the gullible with bollox is all they have achieved. What they should have done was to get their lies straight by actually finding some dust with true thermite in it, then getting it tested to be sure (seems that they could have done that with just $1,000 to Dr Millette but decided upon an ‘in house’ test that won’t be duplicated). But no…….they jumped in like an Irish mine detector…both feet first.

How dumb can one be to conjure up such a wacky idea without actually having the ingredients to prove it? If I didn’t laugh at such stupidity I would……..well, laugh louder. Akin to testing mortar mix that has no cement but saying that it does. Would anyone bother to argue on a forum about this? Probably!!! Plenty of takers for such crap.....thankfully the givers are becoming fewer.

Jones et al could search until their hearts content but still wouldn’t be smart enough, even today, to find any dust anywhere with thermite in it. They’re not smart enough even to be that deceitful…..are they?

Give us ya dust Ryan. (Switch to a scene of Ryan asking the guys from Mythbusters for some samples for an 'experiment' )……lol.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 04:55 AM   #57
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Hehe, I especially like this comment of Millette study on Abovetopsecret, written by Glargod:

"Are they serious? The closest sample was 0.2 miles away from ground zero and taken 17 days later. after 6 days of rain and 1 day of snow.
totally useless IMO. I'm glat it puts you to bed. but does nothing for me. Inside job.

NYC weather
Historical weather data
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
11 12 6 1 1 -3 -5 72 57 41 1020 1015 1010 16 16 14 32 11 53 0.00
12 8 3 -1 3 -5 -10 100 57 28 1026 1022 1014 16 16 14 19 13 29 0.25 Rain
13 8 4 2 8 6 2 100 99 89 1012 1001 996 16 8 3 27 14 37 32.26 Rain
14 8 7 6 6 0 -4 97 65 42 1013 1005 999 16 16 14 29 16 47 0.00
15 11 8 6 7 2 0 96 67 52 1016 1013 1010 16 16 16 16 8 - 0.00
16 13 9 5 6 3 -1 100 70 45 1014 1012 1010 16 15 10 21 8 34 4.06 Rain
17 8 6 3 6 4 2 100 91 68 1015 1013 1012 16 14 8 21 13 32 5.33 Rain
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
18 7 4 1 5 -2 -8 100 66 39 1024 1018 1012 16 16 16 29 14 42 0.00
19 11 6 1 -4 -7 -9 61 41 25 1030 1027 1024 16 16 16 23 13 37 0.00
20 12 7 3 3 -1 -5 76 57 43 1033 1031 1028 16 16 16 19 10 - 0.00
21 7 5 4 7 4 2 100 94 82 1028 1017 1004 16 13 2 50 26 74 26.16 Rain
22 7 6 4 7 4 -1 100 93 70 1003 999 996 16 11 2 35 21 53 32.51 Rain
23 14 9 4 -1 -4 -8 70 45 26 1007 1003 1000 16 16 16 40 26 64 0.25
24 11 7 1 2 -3 -12 70 49 37 1014 1008 1004 16 16 16 27 16 53 0.00
2001 Temp. (°C) Dew Point (°C) Humidity (%) Sea Level Press. (hPa) Visibility (km) Wind (km/h) Precip. (mm) Events
Mar high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg low high avg high sum
25 6 2 -1 -9 -12 -13 47 36 27 1016 1015 1014 16 16 16 27 18 40 0.00
26 3 0 -3 0 -7 -15 100 62 34 1020 1016 1014 16 11 1 27 11 39 1.27 Fog , Snow
27 5 0 -4 -8 -12 -16 50 40 29 1024 1022 1020 16 16 16 24 13 35 0.00
28 9 4 -1 2 -6 -8 86 52 34 1026 1025 1022 16 16 16 19 11 32 0.00
29 7 4 2 4 0 -4 100 76 58 1028 1026 1021 16 14 6 32 14 45 5.33 Rain
30 6 4 3 6 4 3 100 99 89 1019 1007 1001 16 10 2 42 29 66 39.12 Rain
31 8 6 3 4 2 1 100 80 68 1010 1009 1007 16 16 8 13 8 - 1.52 Rain

30 days in Sep
Brainless job.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 7th March 2012 at 05:05 AM.
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 7th March 2012, 05:10 AM   #58
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
30 days in Sep
Brainless job.
shhhhhhhhh......Did you also notice the word 'DEW' ?
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 05:14 AM   #59
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
shhhhhhhhh......Did you also notice the word 'DEW' ?
Don't haarp on it.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 05:36 AM   #60
NutCracker
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
30 days in Sep
Brainless job.
Location: Czech Republic
NutCracker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 06:59 AM   #61
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I spotted Albert Einstein immediately, so I researched a minute. We see the participants of the Solvay Conference (1911), and other well-known geniuses are in the photo, too (year of Nobel Prize in parentheses):
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1902, physics), seated, 4th from left
Marie Curie (1903, physics and 1911, chemistry), seated, 2nd from right
Henri Poincaré, seated, 1st from right
Max Planck (1918, physics), standing, 2nd from left
Maurice de Broglie, standing, 5th from left (pioneerd X-ray diffraction spectroscopy!)
Ernest Rutherford (1908, chemistry), standing, 4th from right
Albert Einstein (1921, physics)

Other who went on to become Nobel laureats that I don't even know are
Walther Nernst (1920, chemistry)
Jean Baptiste Perrin (1926, physics)
Wilhelm Wien (1911, physics)
Heike Kamerlingh Onnes (1913, physics)

What an impressive line-up! Arnold Sommerfeld never won the Nobel prize, but was nominated 81 (1) times, and, more importantly, was doctoral advisor to several Nobel laureates, including Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Hans Bethe, Peter Debye.
I picked that photo because I collect Nobel physics autographs and I have a number of those pictured.
I also have Feynman, one of my faves.
I don't know what it is about the Germans, but I have a plethora of their Nobel physics signed pictures also.

Check out Nobel physics winners by country- Germany 2nd after the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tes_in_Physics
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 7th March 2012 at 08:12 AM.
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 7th March 2012, 10:29 AM   #62
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029

Everyone's acting all slick 'cause they can pick out so-called "legit" scientists but none of you noticed that this is actually Gage (bald, in the suit), Fetzer (big guy) and Jones (bowl cut)....Einstein, Curie, pfffft.
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 10:55 AM   #63
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jackanory View Post
The irony is that Jones et al could have had us thinking…….if only they had given their little scheme a bit more thought. They weren’t smart enough to get their lies straight from the outset. Baffling the gullible with bollox is all they have achieved. What they should have done was to get their lies straight by actually finding some dust with true thermite in it, then getting it tested to be sure (seems that they could have done that with just $1,000 to Dr Millette but decided upon an ‘in house’ test that won’t be duplicated). But no…….they jumped in like an Irish mine detector…both feet first.

How dumb can one be to conjure up such a wacky idea without actually having the ingredients to prove it? If I didn’t laugh at such stupidity I would……..well, laugh louder. Akin to testing mortar mix that has no cement but saying that it does. Would anyone bother to argue on a forum about this? Probably!!! Plenty of takers for such crap.....thankfully the givers are becoming fewer.

Jones et al could search until their hearts content but still wouldn’t be smart enough, even today, to find any dust anywhere with thermite in it. They’re not smart enough even to be that deceitful…..are they?

Give us ya dust Ryan. (Switch to a scene of Ryan asking the guys from Mythbusters for some samples for an 'experiment' )……lol.
The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 12:32 PM   #64
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.
Absolutely...just some way to distract away from the insanity of 9/11 Truth by giving the gullible some multi-syllable words to sit in awe of.

In related news, the fake family member Cosmo quickly gets set straight on his straw grasping, then cries incessantly.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 7th March 2012 at 12:35 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2012, 11:55 PM   #65
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
In related news, the fake family member Cosmo quickly gets set straight on his straw grasping, then cries incessantly.
Those comments are not readable to me. Too many insults.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 06:37 AM   #66
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Those comments are not readable to me. Too many insults.
Yeah the threads ove there quickly degrade into a **** storm.

Edited by LashL:  To properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

Last edited by LashL; 13th March 2012 at 02:44 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 10:03 AM   #67
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Yeah the threads ove there quickly degrade into a **** storm.
Yea its almost impossible to read those SC threads anymore.
Although the 911blogger thread is continuing. Its interesting to see them talk about the RJ Lee letter and claiming that melting point depression only occurs below 50 nm. Based of course on the wikipedia article without looking into the many other sources and examples regarding the burning of steel dust and steel wool at temps such as 430C.

http://www.analytyka.com.mx/tabla%20...N%20POWDER.htm

https://www.google.com/search?q=burn...client=firefox

Last edited by LashL; 13th March 2012 at 02:45 PM. Reason: To properly mask profanity in quote.
Kent1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2012, 09:57 PM   #68
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
New reply here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

I love the claims about Mohr's video long debunked.
His claims "by experimentation", regarding aluminum, gypsum were laughable the day they came out. I guess he's never heard of the emissivity or that yes gypsum wallboard does aid in Corrosion. Long debunked topics with many threads around here.


The claims after Mohr's video mention have long since been refuted.
But the claims in the first few paragraphs I'll have to look at closer when I have more time.

That said how much sulfur did he find in his red paint, err I mean thermite, uh I mean thermite fuse residue that was supposed to melt the steel at below 1000C again.
And if this isn't the magical stuff that was supposed to do the melting/blowing up as Jones now claims, where are the samples for this supposed phantom materical?

Last edited by Kent1; 8th March 2012 at 10:05 PM.
Kent1 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 March 2012, 03:56 PM   #69
Jackanory
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,335
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The paper did serve it's purpose, it got everyone talking about nano-nanu-thermite instead of the impossibility of controlled demolition.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. don't tell anyone, but it served a purpose largely within the confines of a few obscure forums and got the attention of a few die hard nutjobs and rattled the cages of some bored arguementative scientist types.

Ended as expected....again. Cool.
__________________
The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Jackanory 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 10th March 2012, 02:53 PM   #70
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Kent1 View Post
New reply here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

I love the claims about Mohr's video long debunked.
His claims "by experimentation", regarding aluminum, gypsum were laughable the day they came out. I guess he's never heard of the emissivity or that yes gypsum wallboard does aid in Corrosion. Long debunked topics with many threads around here.


The claims after Mohr's video mention have long since been refuted.
But the claims in the first few paragraphs I'll have to look at closer when I have more time.

That said how much sulfur did he find in his red paint, err I mean thermite, uh I mean thermite fuse residue that was supposed to melt the steel at below 1000C again.
And if this isn't the magical stuff that was supposed to do the melting/blowing up as Jones now claims, where are the samples for this supposed phantom materical?
You should not link to the top of the blog, but to individual blog posts. You are referring to this:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...-mek-test.html
Title: "Millette Versus Harrit et al: The MEK Test"

They start off with an excellent analysis of Fig. 10 of the Bentham paper - the XEDS maps of a red layer region on chip (a). They see, correctly, that "the maps for aluminium and silicon are pretty much identical - meaning wherever there's aluminium, there's also silicon. The regions high in aluminium and silicon correlate very well with the locations of plate-like particles.", and this leads them to realize that "it leads to the obvious hypothesis that these plate-like particles may be some form of aluminosilicate, such as kaolin. Steven Jones claims that this was their initial thought."

And then they commit the usual blunder: They leave chip (a) and turn to an entirely different chip: The one they treated with MEK.

Sonebody needs to tell these people that there is absolutely zero data that would indicate that the red material of chip (a) and the red material of the MEK-chip are the same.

They show that, after MEK soaking, Al and Si are not associated with each other. BUT they never showed that Al and Si were associated before MEK soaking, so they really have not shown that the soaking "separated" Al and Si. They assume, without evidence, that chip (a) and the MEK chip are the same material, but ALL the evidence actually shows they are different!


More nonsense:
Quote:
For Dr Millete's samples, there's no established chain of custody, so the different results may be due to the fact that the chips in his samples were deactivated in some way.
It's the other way round: Millette's samples are accounted for precisely for every day since they were collected. Jones's samples on ther other hand were collected without protocol, and were stored under no controlled conditions for years.
This talk about "deactivation" is a cheap handwave and pure speculation.

They repeat the Cate Jenkins allegations. We talked about these before (she does not claim at all that Millette did anything improper).

Talking about hematite particles:
Quote:
Dr Millette's report did confirm the presence of rhomboidal iron oxide nanoparticles about 100-200 nm in diameter. What's particularly interesting about this find is the consistency in terms of the size and shape of the particles. ... It seems unlikely that such remarkable consistency and crystallinity would occur randomly and be found in a paint pigment.
Nonsense. If only they had informed themselves about iron oxide paint pigments.
Look here:
http://books.google.de/books?id=rC_n...page&q&f=false
Go to page 262 and learn: hematite pigments are brownish if larger than 1µm, and transparent below 100nm. Only opaque and coloured between 100 and 1000nm (Fig. 5.36)
Fig 5.38 then shows an image of such pigments. Compare with Millette's hematite: Same size distribution.
Hematite pigemnts closer to 1000nm are purple; closer to 100nm they are yellowish. between 150 and 500nm, they are bright red. Just what we need.

It turns out that hematite pigments with nicely controlles particle size in the range we see in Harrit's and Millette's images have been produced industrially sincer at least the 1920s (Laux process).


Quote:
And obviously we know the chips do something when heated. We have video! Perhaps Dr Millette could repeat Mark Basile's experiment, video and all, and do a DSC test.
The stupid hurts.
Millette DID burn some chips - calls it "ashing". And of course the organic matrix burned!
It can easily be shown that Basile's data points to <5% thermite but >80% organic matrix. Since organic polymers have at least 3 times the energy density of thermite, this means that at least 98% of the energy released when burning Basile's chips is from organic combustion. FAIL!
Basilke didn't do a DSC by the way, and Harrot e.al. failed to characterize the stuff they put in the DSC - we have no idea what it was. Worthless data.


I wonder who are these people who put so much effort into writing such long and such dumb blog posts??
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 13th March 2012, 02:21 AM   #71
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein: Here I have found a longer truther text on Millette's study written by your German fellow-citizen (?) Dirk Gerhardt, named "Kritik an Dr. Millette und seiner angeblichen Widerlegung"

Google translation into English is quite horrible in this case, but still main points are understandable.

As can be expected, the text repeats the same complaints that without DSC "test", nobody can really know if the chips (containing kaolinite, iron oxide and epoxy) are thermitic, etc.

Gerhardt cited some e-mail of Niels Harrit:
"Millette ignores the thermite reaction, like he has ignored the iron spheres for 10 years. So he has very good reasons to ignore the iron sphere formation, since it would contradict his previous work with Paul J. Lioy. The formation of iron spheres in the reaction is the key observation. Everything else is secondary."
Etc, nothing new under the sun

What is quite new are shocking Gerhardt's sentences that Jim Millette washed his chips with water before measurements in order to "mask" somehow the thermitic nature of the material (although no thermal analysis was performed on it, btw).
A quote (after some necessary editing): "When the sample is washed (with water, I.K.) and dried, this could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to deceive, since this operation has the ability to limit the reactivity of chips or completely destroy them. True science certainly looks different."

So, whereas we discuss in the Paint thread and in the Jim Millette study thread if the washing of chips with water is good enough for removal of all surface contaminants for XEDS measurements, the same cleaning procedure is regarded as a potential part of 911 inside job by your fellow-citizen, Oystein

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 13th March 2012 at 02:25 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 13th March 2012, 02:30 AM   #72
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
OMG
*hurries over to Belgium to seek political asylum*

I believe Dirk Gerhardt is also known as "Sitting Bull" in the blogosphere. I don't follow him though, and I might mix up something here.

So washing with water is no-no, but washing with MEK is yes-yes? On what professional or scientific experience with forensic particle analysis do these hobos base their stuff on? I'll check my McCrone particle atlas in a bit if it has any redommendations on sample preparation...
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 13th March 2012, 02:58 AM   #73
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Oystein: Funny that Gerhardt admits that thermite can work even under water.

But, according to him, evil nanothermite can behave differently when investigated by James Millette, who is just a shill paid by US government:
Water can quickly diffuse into the nanothermite epoxy matrix (heavily crosslinked and completely insoluble in water, I.K.) and react with the elemental aluminum particles with the miraculous formation of typical kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4) platelets

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 13th March 2012 at 02:59 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 13th March 2012, 05:20 AM   #74
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Well, Ivan, to you it all sounds like magic, but you'd understand if only you knew as much as Dirk Gerhardt! You and I and us mere mortals never heard of the super-secret "FLIR-test", but evil servant Millette uses it, and Dirk knows why that's evil!

You maybe think it was just FTIR, but don't be fooled. FLIR is a military thing!
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 13th March 2012, 06:14 AM   #75
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Dirk Gerhardt
Der Hauptpunkt von Dr. Millette ist, dass im FLIR-Test kein elementares Al nachgewiesen werden konnte bzw. die sich ergebenden Graphen den von Kaolinit und Epoxydharz ähneln. Dies erscheint nicht nur mir zu dünn, weil die Interpretation der Daten falsch sein kann, sein muss, sofern eine Reduktion von FeO (wie auch immer) zu reinem, metallischen Eisen (Fe) wie von Harrit und Basile beschrieben statt findet. Kaolinit kann das nicht- worauf Prof. Jones in einer früheren Stellungnahme auch schon mal explizit hingewiesen hatte.

Dr. Millette's main point is that the FTIR test didn't demonstrate any elemental Al, and that the resulting graphs are similar to those of kaolinite and epoxy. This appears too thin not only to me, because the interpretation of this data could be wrong, must be wrong, provided a reduction of FeO (in whatever way) to pure, metallic iron (Fe) happened as described by Harrit and Basile. Kaolinite can't do that - which Prof. Jones had already pointed to in an earlier statement.
So much wrong here.
1. Handwave: Of course any interpretation "could" be wrong. The same goes for all the silly interpretations of Harrit and friends. Why doesn't Dirk handwave their results?
2. Strawman: No one claims that it was the kaolin that reduced anything. In fact, Harrit and Jones have not at all shown that any reduction took place, and didn't show any Al2O3 as a result of a thermitic redox-reaction. So the assertion that the finding of kaolin "must" be wrong is itself totally invalid. They keep forgetting about those ~70% organic matrix.
3. False dichotomy: IF (and that's a big fat if!) any reduction of FeO took place, could it not have been done by oxidation of organic material, or by products of the degradation of the epoxy (CO, perhaps)? Gerhard, Jones, Harrit don't rule out other possibilities. Another possibility: When they discuss the MEK-soaked chip, they claim that Zn, Ca, S imn Fig. 14 are all contaminations that wash off from MEK treatment. So the question naturally arises: Did Farrer test cleaned or uncleaned chips in the DSC? If cleaned, how did he clean them? Why then doesn't Gerhardt call the hiding of this step "fraud", when he call's Millette's openly admitting that he cleaned the chips "fraud"? If Farrer didn't clean the chips, how do they rule out any reactions of or with contamination materials?
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 13th March 2012, 11:34 AM   #76
Kent1
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,179
Looks like ScootleRoyale responded to Oystein and myself.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...tended-as.html


Quote:
I am well aware that JREFers have nitpicked these videos of experiments that test their claims. My point was that Chris Mohr parrots these claims in his videos while neglecting to mention that these tests have been done. It wouldn't be so bad if he had said "The molten metal pouring out of the south tower could have been aluminium. Stephen Jones believes he has refuted this, but here's the problem with his experiment ...". But he doesn't say that. He completely ignores Jones' experiment. Same thing with John Cole's gypsum experiment. By acting like these videos don't exist, Chris Mohr is being deceptive.
If this was your new standard of debate, the blog wouldn't look anything like it does now.

Maybe Mohr can make an addition at the end of his videos called "A list of Steven Jones goofball experiments". My favorite one is where he dropped concrete 12 feet onto another block, and because it didn't pulverize into powder like the Twin Towers, it must of likely been explosives.
He says you can try it yourself.
(No joke)

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ress=125x55542

Last edited by Kent1; 13th March 2012 at 11:38 AM.
Kent1 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 March 2012, 11:48 AM   #77
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Oh they are reading what we write hehehe


Hey, ScootleRoyale, I got some questions for you, Harrit, Jones:
  • The Bentham paper says they were doing FTIR analysis on the chips and would show the results elsewhere. Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Harrit and Jones have said on several occasions that Farrer did TEM analysis on the particles in the red layer. They identified hematite (in particle sizes of 100-300nm a very common pignent, see McCrone, Delly: The Particle Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two, page 763, "Paint chips") Where are these results? Why have we not seen them yet? What are they hiding?
  • Aren't you a bit suspicious that they did those tests, but never showed any results? Would be so nice to compare them Millette's...



ETA Oh dear they ARE responding directly to this - and make fools of themselves:

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
An XEDS spectrum was acquired prior to soaking (Figure 14), and the authors concluded based on that that it was a red/gray chip.
Alright, ScootleRoyale, let's compare the XEDS spectra.
Here's chips (a)-(d):



Please notice the similarities:
  • All are dominated by C (second highest peak is O at 13-35% of C, average 27%)
  • All have O as second highest peak (except (d), where O is barely beaten by Si)
  • Very important: All have nearly equal peaks for Al and Si (Si slightly higher in 3 of 4)
  • All have Fe at roughly 2/3 the peak hight of Si.
  • None contain Zn, none contain Mg, only one contains labeled traces of other elements (although more traces are actually there: Cr, Sr, Ti...)
In addition to all these similarities, Harrit e.al. show more proof that they are probably all the same material:
  • Fig. 2 shows photographs - color and finish appear the same on all four chips
  • Fig 5 shows BSE images of the red layers with scale bars of 5-10 µm. All four chips appear to have the same kinds of particles in about the same density embedded into a similar looking kind of matrix
  • Fig 6 shows XEDS graphs for the four gray layers: They are all very similar in that they have large O- and Fe-peaks, small C-peaks (and also 3 of the 4 have a tiny, unlabeled signal for Mn))
  • Fig 8 shows higher magnification BSE images of all four chips - again we see the same kinds of whitish, rhombic grains and greyish platelets, which are sometimes stacked
So yes, indeed, these 4 chips have been shown by Harrit e.al. to very probably be the sane material.

Now on to Fig 14:

Let's see if we find the same similarities:
  • Dominated by C? No. O is the highest peak
  • O follows in second place? No. See above. O is 166% of instead of 27%, or ~6 times too high
  • Si and Al have about same peak hight? No. Si is nearly twice as high as Al
  • Fe has about 2/3 the peak height of Si (or Al)? No. Fe is higher than both Al and Si
  • Zn and Mg are absent? No. Both are present (Mg is the peak between the first Zn and Al. You might want to ask Harrit why he didn't label it, it is clearly there. Don't you suspect fraud?)
  • All other elements are traces at most? No. Ca is the second highest peak and very dominant.
So in fact this XEDS graph is different from the graphs of chips (a)-(d) in every single way!
And you say they concluded from THIS that it was the same??? Honestly??

But let's go on - what other data do we have to confirm that this MEK chip is the same as (a)-(d)?
  • Photograph: Fig 13 is totally out of focus. We see it's red, bit we can't assess finish or hue due to bad quality
  • BSE-images: None. No way to tell if the same grains and platelets are present. However, Fig 12b allows us to at least assess the thickness of the red layer: It is here some 300µm thick - after swelling to about 5 times its former size due to MEK soaking. So that layer was initially about 60µm. We can measure the thickness of the red layer for chips (a) and (b) in Fig. 5a+b, and for chip (d) in Fig. 2d: Betweem 15 and 30µm. Much thinner.
  • XEDS-graph of gray layer: Missing

So my claim was correct: There is not a single measurement of the MEK chip that allows us to compare it to chips (a)-(d) and conclude it's the same material. The only two measurements that allow such a comparison, the XEDS spectrum and layer thickness, have results that significantly differ from each other.
Conclusion: The MEK chip is a different material.





Now some claim that perhaps the XEDS in Fig 14 is contaminated with gypsum, i.e. calcium sulfide. Problem with that: Gypsum has an S-peak that is equal to and sometimes higher than Ca-peak. In Fig 14 however, Ca is 3x S. So if you remove the S and say it's gypsum, then you are still left with 2/3 of the Ca, with no explanation! Ca peak is then still higher than Fe, higher than Al, higher than Si! What else do you want to remove then from the graph? Perhaps some clacium silicate? Let's try! Let's reduce the Si peak down to the hight of the Al peak, and pretend that this takes care of the rest of the Ca. Then your Fe-peak is suddenly quite dominant: 266% of the Al peak, instead of only 66%! So now you nee to take off 75% of all the iron to fix that problem. And you are still left with unwanted Zn and Mg.

Basically, to use "contamination" to explain why Fig 14 is so very different from Fig. 7, you need to remove
  • >80% of the oxygen (highest peak)
  • all of the major metal (calcium, 2nd highest peak)
  • 75% of the iron(4th highest peak)
  • 50% of the silicone (5th-highest peak)
  • all of the sulfur (6th-highest peak)
  • all of the Zn
  • all of the Mg
  • most of the Cr
In other words: With the exception of Al and C, you must declare more than 50% of everything in this chip to be "contamination".

Wow. What a handwave Harrit, Jones and Farrer tried there! And ScootleRoyale apparently fell for it!

Last edited by Oystein; 13th March 2012 at 12:51 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 13th March 2012, 02:05 PM   #78
Julio
Scholar
 
Julio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So much wrong here.
1. Handwave: Of course any interpretation "could" be wrong. The same goes for all the silly interpretations of Harrit and friends. Why doesn't Dirk handwave their results?
He, he..., it's indeed very easy to make wrong interpretations when what you are looking for is a confirmation of your bias, instead of honestly trying to find out what you have.

No one of the tests Harrit et al conducted was directed to identify the nature of their samples:
SEM + EDX: Gives data of elemental composition. Can help to determine, but data is not conclusive.
MEK soaking: Does not give any direct data to know about the composition
DSC: Does not give any direct information about the composition of the sample. If you are biased to think you have thermite, it's easy to take the leap to think a exothermic reaction corresponds to the "ignition"

So, the conclusion of the presence of (nano)themite is only after interpreting data of several tests, none of them capable to identify the molecular composition of samples.

On the other side, Millette addressed the point directly:
FTIR: Gives information about the IR signature of compunds. Much like EDX gives the X-Ray signature of elements, and so it's difficult to confuse Si from Al, or Fe, FTIR data makes it difficult to misidentify kaolin and the epoxy matrix.
SEM+EDX: Helps to confirm the presence of the elements that make up kaolin that shows up in FTIR
TEM+SAED: helps to confirm the presence of kaolin


Harrit et al: 3 tests, mix all data, and get a wrong interpetation due to bias.

Millette: 1 test that clearly identifies the sample + 2 tests that confirm the result.
Julio 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 March 2012, 02:17 PM   #79
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
I got more for you, ScootleRoyale!

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
The fact that red/gray chips are present in all 9 of these samples, which were all collected from different places, suggests that red/gray chips were likely present in every cubic decimeter of those massive dust clouds produced that day. If these red/gray chips are just paint chips (the red layer) attached to a flakes of steel (the gray layer), then why - considering how prevalent they are in the dust - do they not match any of Tnemec's 177 coating products (as Millette concluded)?
Easy, buddy: Cuz Tnemec wasn't the only primer used on the twin towers. In fact, it is only known to have been applied to the perimeter columns. These account for roughly 30% of the total painted steel surface. 45% are the floor joists - NOT painted with Tnemec, I'll come to that in a bit - and for 25% of the total steel surface (core columns and beams, hat truss...) the primer is not know.

You truthers must really stop using the STUPID argument that if a paint is not Tnemec, then it is not primer! Tnemec was NOT the only primer used in the twin towers, there was at least one other! This is not conjecture, this is documented fact! Stop ignoring reality!

Millette found that the chips weren't Tnemec because we asked him to specifically look for the kind of chips that we already knew to not be Tnemec: Those that resemble Harrit's and Jones's chips (a)-(d).

Originally Posted by ScootleRoyale
Besides nanothermite, the only other explanation is that the entire steel structure of the World Trade Center was coated in some mysterious paint that nobody can seem to identify.
Not so mysterious:

NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B (page 157 of the PDF file) describes the paint formulation that LaClede Steel Company used to paint the floor joists with - remember, that's 45% of all the painted steel area:
  • Epoxy (Millette found epoxy, Harrit e.al. failed to identify the organic matrix)
  • Iron oxide (Millette and Harrit found iron oxide - Fe2O3, hematite)
  • aluminium silicate (Millette found Al-silicate (kaolin); Harrit e.al. also show kaolin in their data for chips (a)-(d), they were and still are just too stupid to notice)
  • Traces of Strontium chromate (Harrit found traces of both Sr and Cr in chip (a) according to his letter, Fig. 5)
  • In addition, Harrit e.al. Fig 6 shows the gray layer, with traces of C and Mn (unlabeled, still there in 3 of the 4 spectra) is consistent with the A242(66) steel that LaClede used the most on the joists

So it seems that yes, we found us some "mystery" primer.

There will be some chips left unidentified, but Harrit, Jones e.al. have a huge problem: They haven't shown that any chip contained significant elemental Al (no, the way they butchered that one chip with MEK, that result is totally inconclusive. Remember, Al was only the 7th-most abundant element in that chip; it should be the 2nd most abundant in thermite. They didn't DSC that chip, and never showed that it resembles any other chip, so there is precisely zero documented and reproducible proof that this kind of chip, high in Ca, with much more Fe than Al, burns and leaves Fe-spheres. Sloppy science! Bad Science!).
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 13th March 2012, 04:07 PM   #80
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I believe Dirk Gerhardt is also known as "Sitting Bull" in the blogosphere. I don't follow him though, and I might mix up something here.
Yes, he is. I currently participate in a discussion on 9/11 with him in a german forum.

Quote:
So washing with water is no-no, but washing with MEK is yes-yes?
I just recalled that aluminum reacts with MEK, too.

Last edited by Africanus; 13th March 2012 at 04:16 PM.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 10:10 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.