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 30th November 2012, 06:45 AM   #1001
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
A few other comments: Neither Millette nor I have ever said that we are confident that LaClede primer is the source of the red-grey chips. Millette didn't find strontium chromate in his analysis. However, the small quantities of the chemical may mean he could have missed it. Apparently it may have been found by the authors of the Bentham study. The only way we can know for sure is to get a known sample of the LaClede primer and compare it in the lab, which Millette is willing to do if he can find it. He is asking around.

What Millette is certain of is that there is no thermite of any kind in the samples he studied, and his research is compelling. Millette doesn't make public his hypotheses about what a dust sample really is without thorough lab analysis.
__________________
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 30th November 2012, 08:23 AM   #1002
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
A few comments... This request for funds for a new study has the same old ad hominem attacks I spent hours refuting last year: http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...ave-found.html

This is the blog post from Kevin Ryan that Talboo et al continue to refer to:

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when...ls-at-the-wtc/

And here is my response: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...212725&page=86 (start 2/3 of the way down, on post 3435-3437). Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attack against both me and Jim Millette was staggerringly false. The EPA whitleblower who praised Millette's scientific integrity was used as evidence that Millette had no integrity! This is unbelievable and inexcusable. Kevin and I originally had a friendly connection after a personal meeting and several respectful emails but this shattered it. If anyone is in contact with Talboo and others, please tell them to read this post and my response to Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks. They have no place in this WTC dust discussion.
Link, quote and a couple of recommendations forwarded to Talboo
Oystein 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 30th November 2012, 09:44 AM   #1003
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,262
Can't NIST be asked for samples? They have abundant material. Or did they return it?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2012, 11:17 AM   #1004
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Can't NIST be asked for samples? They have abundant material. Or did they return it?
Good idea. I will ask NIST as well as Steven Jones.
__________________
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 December 2012, 12:52 PM   #1005
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 1st December 2012 at 12:54 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 01:00 PM   #1006
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by ergo View Post

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.
Why? It's known what would happen. Why don't your heroes release their hidden data?

They did the same tests but don't want you to see the results. That's not a problem to you. Why?
__________________
"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; 1st December 2012 at 01:01 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 02:26 AM   #1007
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.
So what your saying is. The only way to establish if thermite is present in the wtc chips is to heat them in a DSC device ?

If Millette does a DSC test and doesn't produce the same results, What then, you say he has the wrong chips?, didn't do the test correctly ? Was paid to cover up? The list goes on.

Why won't Mark Basile allow anyone to test his chips? Would it be that Basile likes to make it look like he has something to hide ?
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 2nd December 2012, 02:57 AM   #1008
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
My highlight
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?

Who is it that keeps this "debate" going? As you can see by these threads, it's overwhelmingly the "debunkers". Why can't they just debunk the damn thing and get it done with? Because they're either incompetent, or because they're not able to debunk a factual, methodical finding, and they're satisfied with simply muddying the waters.

And, again, for the record: Millette did not report on iron microspheres in his initial WTC dust study for the EPA. No amount of Chris Mohr wringing his hands and complaining about Kevin Ryan is going to change that fact.
You might be referring to thisenvironmental health report:

Paul J. Lioy, Clifford P. Weisel, James R. Millette, Steven Eisenreich, Daniel Vallero, John Offenberg, Brian Buckley, Barbara Turpin, Mianhua Zhong,
Mitchell D. Cohen, Colette Prophete, Ill Yang, Robert Stiles, Glen Chee, Willie Johnson, Robert Porcja, Shahnaz Alimokhtari, Robert C. Hale, Charles Weschler,
and Lung Chi Chen (July 2002) Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the
Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001. Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 110, NUMBER 7, 703.
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members...110p703PDF.PDF


Iron microspheres are not an environmental health hazard. Many people ingest iron, like dihydrogen monoxide which Millette also did not report on, without any harmful health consequences,
Skip to 2:45
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
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; 2nd December 2012 at 03:09 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 2nd December 2012, 03:41 AM   #1009
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,683
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint
Does thermite get spread paper thin and contain an epoxy resin and kaolin?

Does paint?

Do you care?
__________________
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
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 2nd December 2012, 06:30 AM   #1010
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
"So what your saying is. The only way to establish if thermite is present in the wtc chips is to heat them in a DSC device ?

If Millette does a DSC test and doesn't produce the same results, What then, you say he has the wrong chips?, didn't do the test correctly ? Was paid to cover up? The list goes on..."
Why don't we deal with that should it happen?

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

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

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

MM
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 2nd December 2012, 06:53 AM   #1011
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
...
Why won't Mark Basile allow anyone to test his chips? Would it be that Basile likes to make it look like he has something to hide ?
Could it be that you are mixing up Basile with either K. Ryan or Jones? Basile wants to send some of his chips to an independent lab for testing as soon as he has raised the funds. I asked him a couple of days ago if he would also send some specimens to Millette, and he hasn't refused yet (I am waiting for a reply)
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 06:58 AM   #1012
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Why don't we deal with that should it happen?

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

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

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

MM
It sounds like your saying, the only way to establish if thermite is present in wtc chips is using the same methodology as the Bentham paper.

Please correct if I am wrong, I was under the impression Jim Millette used the approach of finding what materials the chips are made of to start. He did not find aluminium and was able to rule out thermite. I am also under the impression the Jim Millette is working on finding what materials the chips are made of and not trying to make them look like an explosive compound.

I have no reason to believe Millette is a debunker and I personally would except his word if he said he found thermite.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/index.htm

Last edited by Spanx; 2nd December 2012 at 07:04 AM.
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 2nd December 2012, 07:02 AM   #1013
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.
...
MM, can you please give me a preview of how you will inteprete the possible outcomes should Millette ever do DSC tests?

For each individual specimen, you can classify all possible test results in one of these two categories:
  1. Test result basically matches that of Farrer
  2. Test result basically doesn't match Farrer's
So please, MM, tell us what case 1 would mean, and what case 2 would mean - in conjunction with Millette's and Farrer's other results of course!

When you have answered that specifically, you can also give us your take on the 3 possible outcomes for several specimens:
  1. All of Millette's chips basically perform like Farrer's
  2. None of Millette's chips basically perform like Farrer's
  3. Some perform like Farrer's, others don't

I just want to test if any possible outcome of a DSC test by Millette would result in you accepting that Farrer's and Harrit's conclusions are refuted and debunked! If you cannot specify a DSC test outcome that would falsify the Harrit e.al. theory, then I hope you understand that it would be useless test in the framework of scientific logic!
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 07:03 AM   #1014
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Could it be that you are mixing up Basile with either K. Ryan or Jones? Basile wants to send some of his chips to an independent lab for testing as soon as he has raised the funds. I asked him a couple of days ago if he would also send some specimens to Millette, and he hasn't refused yet (I am waiting for a reply)
Sorry Oystein, I was under the impression Basile had already been asked and refused.
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 2nd December 2012, 07:04 AM   #1015
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Sorry Oystein, I was under the impression Basile had already been asked and refused.
Chris Mohr asked Kevin Ryan about a year ago, and Kevin refused.
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 07:18 AM   #1016
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Chris Mohr asked Kevin Ryan about a year ago, and Kevin refused.
My bad, thanks for the clarification.

Let's hope Mark Basile does the right thing.
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 2nd December 2012, 08:21 AM   #1017
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

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

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper."
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
"It sounds like your saying, the only way to establish if thermite is present in wtc chips is using the same methodology as the Bentham paper...."
What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.

Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
"Please correct if I am wrong, I was under the impression Jim Millette used the approach of finding what materials the chips are made of to start. He did not find aluminium and was able to rule out thermite. I am also under the impression the Jim Millette is working on finding what materials the chips are made of and not trying to make them look like an explosive compound.

I have no reason to believe Millette is a debunker and I personally would except his word if he said he found thermite.
"

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/millette/index.htm
Last year, Chris Mohr deceived many when he claimed;

Originally Posted by Chris Mohr
"His [Millette] intention is to replicate the tests done in the Bentham study."
bolding is mine

So what does replicate mean?

Well, according to the dictionary; "make an exact copy of; or reproduce. To repeat a scientific experiment or trial to obtain a consistent result."

But Millette's company did not have the necessary test equipment to attempt a replication of the Bentham Paper research so he substituted tests which he did have the equipment for.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:33 AM   #1018
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:37 AM   #1019
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...If Millette is correct in his belief, than it should be easy to put this matter to rest by showing the original Bentham Paper findings are not reproducible.

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

I can only assume they are afraid they might end up with results that reinforce the findings of the Bentham Paper."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"MM, can you please give me a preview of how you will inteprete the possible outcomes should Millette ever do DSC tests?..."
Until I see a different outcome, I have no idea how I should interpret it.

Having said that, I am quite prepared to change my mind about the Bentham Paper findings if they cannot be replicated.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:38 AM   #1020
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.



Last year, Chris Mohr deceived many when he claimed;


bolding is mine

So what does replicate mean?

Well, according to the dictionary; "make an exact copy of; or reproduce. To repeat a scientific experiment or trial to obtain a consistent result."

But Millette's company did not have the necessary test equipment to attempt a replication of the Bentham Paper research so he substituted tests which he did have the equipment for.

MM
Is that the best you can offer as an explanation as to why Millette did not find aluminium ?
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 2nd December 2012, 08:42 AM   #1021
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic.
Not to mention that thermite requires a much higher temperature than ~ 450 C to ignite, but not epoxy resin, and that it should spew "sparkles" which their DSC paint chip test doesn't.
__________________
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
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 2nd December 2012, 08:43 AM   #1022
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What I am saying, is that if their Bentham Paper's findings are so fallacious, than it should be possible to prove them wrong using identical methodology.
Why do you want to use the wrong methods? It's one of the reasons why the paper is so flawed.

That's the whole bloody point of performing FTIR and SEM-SAED. Those two methods tell you EXACTLY what the material IS. Why do you want to replicate methods that cannot tell you exactly what the material is?
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 08:48 AM   #1023
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Truthers: Below is a figure from the Harrit et al paper. Do you agree with the paper's conclusions that these 4 samples are the same? i.e. a=b=c=d

Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:19 AM   #1024
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"Here's the choice. Pick one.

1. Do a test that determines exactly what the material is. (FTIR) (TEM-SAED)
2. Do an ambiguous test that doesn't tell you much about the material. (DSC)

Truthers always pick number 2 and then argue that if you perform test 1, but not 2, then you haven't concluded anything. There is no point in replicating a flawed method. DSC is flawed as it tells you virtually nothing.

There is absolutely no point in performing method 2 when you've done method 1 and know EXACTLY what the material is.

It amazes me how stupid truthers are and how their dogmatic stance precludes them from understanding the simplest logic.
"
Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive.

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.

Well maybe sometimes it is unwise or unhealthy to pursue the truth.

But doing so does not mean a person is stupid.

Insulting people who seek the truth would appear to be reaching the height of stupidity.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:26 AM   #1025
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.


MM
I don't believe he did. He called the people that believed them stupid. Big difference.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2012, 09:32 AM   #1026
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't believe he did. He called the people that believed them stupid. Big difference.
Truthers aren't big on reading comprehension or responding to posts that show their ridiculous position up.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 09:42 AM   #1027
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,863
My highlight
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Unless FTIR and TEM-SAED testing is applied to portions of cleaned samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings, the results will not be definitive.

So you, Mr. Anonymous, are calling the scientists who contributed to, and agreed with, the findings of the Bentham Paper, stupid just because they made a determination that the DSC findings were not ambiguous.

Well maybe sometimes it is unwise or unhealthy to pursue the truth.

But doing so does not mean a person is stupid.

Insulting people who seek the truth would appear to be reaching the height of stupidity.

MM
Like vampires, non-truthers can't see their images in the mirror.
Vampires because they have no soul, non-truthers because they have no truth.
__________________
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; 2nd December 2012 at 09:47 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 2nd December 2012, 10:23 AM   #1028
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Until I see a different outcome, I have no idea how I should interpret it.

Having said that, I am quite prepared to change my mind about the Bentham Paper findings if they cannot be replicated.

MM
1. You can say how you will interprete Millette getting basically the same result, right? How would you interprete that? Say Millette puts chips into the DSC that he has previously shown to contain lots of epoxy, mixed with serious amounts of hematite particles, kaolin particles, and bits of other particles (TiO2 perhaps, or Strontium Chromate), and no elemental Al, and gets the same result of an energetic peak near 430°C, power density up to 7.5 kJ/g, iron rich spheres in the residue (and whatever I might have missed now): Please comment such an outcome!

2. Can you give me an example of a result that differs from what Farrer got, that would change your mind about the Bentham Paper findings? I think "different result" would mean that one or more of the following occurs:
2.1 Temperature where power output peaks is significantly higher or lower than 430°C
2.2. Energy density of all or most specimens is either higher than Farrer's high value of 7.5 kJ/g, or lower than Farrer's low value of 1.5 kJ/g
2.3 Residue of DSC test looks significantly different (say, you don't find iron-rich spheres)
So again, please give me an example that you would interprete as Harrit e.al.'s findings being wrong, and not as Millette studying the wrong material!




In other words: Please design the experiment such that the hypothesis we are testing ("red-gray chips are thermitic material, i.e. the thermite reaction Fe2O3+2Al -> Al2O3+2Fe occurs when heated") can be falsified with it! Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification?
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 10:42 AM   #1029
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...samples that have be shown to provide DSC support for the Bentham Paper findings...
You are working under the assumption that the DSC test results in the Bentham paper support the Bentham paper findings.

That assumption is unsupported. The opposite is true: The DSC test results in the Bentham paper are best explained by a reaction other than the thermite reaction. Reason:
1. We know from the Bentham paper that a significant portion of the mass of the tested chips is inert gray layer
2. We know from the Bentham paper that a significant portion of the mass of the red layers is organic matrix.
3. We thus know from the Bentham paper that significantly less than 50% - certainly less than 25% and likely less than 10%, of the chips' mass consists of iron- and aluminium-bearing chemical substances
3b. From 3. it follows that certainly <25%, likely <10%, and possibly 0% of the chips' mass is actually thermite in stoichiometric proportions.
4. We know from the Bentham paper that the chips have an energy density up to 7.5 kJ/g
5. We know from the Bentham paper that pure thermite, under the idealest of conditions, has an energy density of <4 kJ/g
6. Combining findings 3b. and 5., we thus know from the Bentham paper that thermite provides certainly less than a value of 1 kJ/g (<4 kJ/g * 25%), likely <0.4 kJ/g (<4 kJ/g * 10%) and possibly 0 kJ/g
7. We know from the Bentham paper that a different reaction (or several other reactions) must also have occurred
8. From 4., 6. amd 7. it follows that these other reactions must have provided 6.5-7.5 kJ/g in the chip that had an energy density of 7.5 kJ/g, or 87-100% of the energy output; and 3.5-4.5 kJ/g (78-100%) in the second-most powerful chip.
9. From 8. it follows that the main peak of the black and green DSC curves in Figure 19 of the Bentham paper must largely, if not completely due to reactions other than the thermite reaction

In short:
The powerful event that happened around 430°C in the Bentham paper DSC test was not the thermite reaction.

If you disagree, please show where my reasoning is wrong!

Last edited by Oystein; 2nd December 2012 at 10:44 AM.
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 10:58 AM   #1030
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
In short:
The powerful event that happened around 430°C in the Bentham paper DSC test was not the thermite reaction.
Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 11:05 AM   #1031
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I would also add for the readers of these threads, that 9/11 bedunkers, without fail, refer to thermite in their so-called analyses, when references to the literature repeatedly shown to them indicates a much different kind of power density in nanothermites than regular thermite.

Most if not all bedunkers arguing in these threads have little knowledge of nanochemistry - something that Neils Harrit is expert in.

Until recently, many bedunkers in fact didn't really believe in nanothermites. They were convinced it was something Harrit and Jones made up. Seriously.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 11:16 AM   #1032
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.
No. You lost focus very quickly. Remember, the question is:

Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings?

I have shown that their own DSC test results falsify their findings. Do you remember what their findings were?
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 11:23 AM   #1033
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
So we have Thermite, Thermate and nanothermite.

Ergo please tell us where Millette went wrong.
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 2nd December 2012, 11:24 AM   #1034
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 11:52 AM   #1035
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,
OK, Using the Bentham paper. Tell us what part actually supports their conclutions. Don't use their opinion. Show me chemistry.

I bet you cant. (they didn't)
__________________
"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 2nd December 2012, 12:37 PM   #1036
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No. You lost focus very quickly. Remember, the question is:

Which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings?

I have shown that their own DSC test results falsify their findings. Do you remember what their findings were?
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You've told us your opinion, Oystein. An opinion based largely on ignorance of nanochemical processes.

You've shown us nothing,
I note:

1. You cannot, or refuse to, tell us what Harrit e.al.'s findings were
2. You cannot, or refuse to, explain which possible test result(s) would constitute falsification of the Harrit e.al. findings.

In other words, you give up and lose by default.

Good evening.
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 12:53 PM   #1037
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 01:00 PM   #1038
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,376
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.
Neither did Jones and the boys. You don't have a problem with that though.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2012, 01:55 PM   #1039
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I note that you have consistently failed to show us positively what caused the reaction in the DSC test - one you claim is not thermitic.

Therefore, by your logic, you give up and lose by default.
No.

That is not the question we are debating here.

Do you remember what the question is that Harrit e.al. wanted to answer? Do you remember the answer they gave?

Do you remember the question we asked Millette? Do you remember the answer?

Which answer is correct, ergo?

The evidence is in: Harrit's answer is wrong
Millette's answer is wright.
DSC plays no role in answering either question.
DSC is unnecessary and a distraction.
Oystein 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 2nd December 2012, 09:12 PM   #1040
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,262
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Great, then all you have to do now is show us positively what caused the reaction. Not tell us what did it; not conjecture about it. Show us.
How can anyone tell? We have abso-*******-lutely no idea of what they put into the DSC, because the authors were so sloppy to not analyze the samples before putting them there.

So, you're dodging the main question by demanding an impossibility. You've been told time and again that DSC is not a good method to characterize a material. The DSC trace doesn't tell us what a material is. And we have no idea of what they put in there.

Now, what result from a DSC test would convince you that there is no thermite?

(My prediction: Ergo will not answer that question this time either, and neither will MirageMemories. The reason: if they reveal their card then they can't work around it if the test is done and they get the result they don't want. They want to believe there is thermite. So did the authors of the paper, which is why it's a biased paper with a conclusion that can't be trusted.)
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 09:37 AM.
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.