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 11th January 2013, 06:34 AM   #1201
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...
Is there anything I am missing with this suggestion of how to get a possible LaClede primer sample from the WTC debris?
Nothing I can think of at the moment.

Then again, I often fail to think of easy things.
For example, with our (well, my) tight focus on LaClede primer, I forgot to consider that looking at the unknown paints from other parts of the WTC (other than known Tnemec from 1+2 perimeters, and LaClede from floor joists; such as core columns, core girders, or material from Building 7 and other structures) may well be of interest and help to categorize the various kinds of red-gray chips. So any sample from any WTC steel part should be welcome
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 11th January 2013, 07:33 AM   #1202
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
"…BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't. Unfortunately, he refused to release the samples to me or Millette, and our personal connection broke down around that time. I was never able to get samples of these different kinds of chips, or more info about them in relation to the Bentham paper. Nor did I know at that time about the two different types of paint primer in use at WTC. So MM is right that the Bentham authors knew there were paint chips, but his noncooperation has made it impossible to know what he actually has."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...Problem is, they never put that into writing. Reading the Bentham paper, no carefulk reader would get the idea that they acknowledge the presence of red-gray chips that are paint, and use any method to avoid thise. Thus any follow-up researcher wouldn't know how to separate paint chips from "thermitic" chips. What are the objective criteria, short of burning them? I suppose Farrer knew which chips to put in the DSC - or did he test a lot of chips and only some showed the exothermic quality, and that's the sole criterion? How then do they know it is not some paint that happens to have an exothermic quality?

Jones and Legge suggest following the protocol described in the Bentham paper to select chips - but that is exactly what Millette did:
- Pull a magnet through the dust
- Under a microscope, separate those that are bi-layered red and grey
- Additionally, he chose some whose EDS spectra match Fig. 6 and 7

So I would like for Kevin, Frank, Steve, Niels or Jeff - or Mark - to please explain to all researchers interested in "replicating" the Harrit study what Millette did wrong, and how to do it right - apparently, the descriptions contained in the Bentham paper are not sufficient!…
"
Problem?

Is it a problem that the authors did not itemize every possible substance that may or may not have existed in the WTC residue?

The paper was never presented as a How To.

It is common practise for followup researchers to correspond and/or collaborate with those who performed the original investigation before proceeding.

If scientists purporting to be doing followup corroborative research show bias and/or no interest in following the original test methods, than it is not surprising that they will receive little or no cooperation in return.

Dr. Harritt et al have made it clear that they wish to continue their research and are quite anxious to work with scientists who attempt to reproduce the Bentham Paper findings in a fair and open-minded manner.

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 11th January 2013, 08:08 AM   #1203
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
It is common practise for followup researchers to correspond and/or collaborate with those who performed the original investigation before proceeding.
...
Here is a short correspondence with an author of the Bentham paper:

Question:
Originally Posted by Ronald Wieck
Mr. Legge,

you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."

Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?
2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?
3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?

If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now?
Reply by Bentham author:
Originally Posted by Frank Legge
Ronald and Millette

"you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."

Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?
"

Of course!

"2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?"

Of course

"3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?"

Of course.

"If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now? "

Of course. Read the Active Thermitic Materials paper. It is all set out there.

Why do I bother when you people do not do your preparation before you jump into the ring.

Neither of you answer my questions or admit that some of my points are correct; you just change the subject. That is no way to carry on an educational debate.

I have done my best and will now retire to more productive activities.
So you see, the Bentham paper co-author thinks the "how-to" is set out in the paper.

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM?

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

Last edited by Oystein; 11th January 2013 at 08:10 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 11th January 2013, 10:45 AM   #1204
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Here is a short correspondence with an author of the Bentham paper:

Question:


Reply by Bentham author:

So you see, the Bentham paper co-author thinks the "how-to" is set out in the paper.

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM?

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!
It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

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 11th January 2013, 01:43 PM   #1205
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Is there anything I am missing with this suggestion of how to get a possible LaClede primer sample from the WTC debris?
The dead certainty that no matter how bulletproof the manner of collection is, if any results contradict 'truther' received wisdom the process will be declared tainted (not so if it supports their arguments)

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 11th January 2013, 01:59 PM   #1206
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.
What a cop out. You're just as bad as Frank.
__________________
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 11th January 2013, 05:07 PM   #1207
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

MM
You didn't answer the question, MM. I asked:

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

Please answer the questions. You know, evasions only look bad on you
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 12th January 2013, 09:45 AM   #1208
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"You didn't answer the question, MM. I asked:

Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!

Please answer the questions. You know, evasions only look bad on you
"
Of course I answered your question.

A question that you no doubt will keep repeating until you receive an answer that you like.

Try as you might, you cannot reach beyond your grasp.

Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

I have no reason to believe that these scientists are collaborating in scientific fraud.

Looking at your 'quote' from Frank Legge, if I read it correctly (your method of quoting people is unorthodox), he claims you fail to respond to questions and ignore the correctness of his points.

Given your disingenuous behaviour, it is a wonder that Frank Legge bothered to give you any response.

The Bentham Paper authors put a great deal of time and effort into their work, and quite understandably are critical of Millette after he said he was going to follow the Bentham Paper methodology but because he was unequipped to do so, chose a testing method which his company was equipped to do.

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 12th January 2013, 09:52 AM   #1209
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Cop-out noted. Stick to cutting

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 12th January 2013, 09:56 AM   #1210
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,078
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

MM
Of course they didn't, they found EXACTLY what they were looking for, and the fact that their own paper shows that it is not thermighty! that is not gonna stop intrepid researchers like your heroes here.

And that is why the truth movement is a *********** joke.
The Big Dog 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 12th January 2013, 10:26 AM   #1211
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.

...
MM
A bunch of loons (on 911). Proof - zero steel damaged by thermite. You would have to use the steel cut after 911 by torches etc, which Jones used once as his fake proof of thermite, to have proof for the fantasy of thermite.

Jones made up thermite, got fired, had to make up a journal, and had to publish his lie about thermite in a vanity journal. They paid to publish their fake findings. Notice the thermite did not have the energy of thermite. Ironically the office fires produced more heat than 2,500 TONS of thermite.

Why is there zero damage by thermite to steel at the WTC? Answer the simple question and you see Jones is nuts. I have to think his best work is his book on Christ in the New World; what do you think?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 10:41 AM   #1212
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It would seem that your problem stems from a layman's inability to properly understand the Bentham Paper.

Legge appears to have no such issue, but of course, that's the world he lives in.

MM
Do you think Dr Millette understood the paper?

Do you think that Dr Millette used the same method rhat Harrit et al used to extract red/gray chips from the dust?
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 12th January 2013, 10:57 AM   #1213
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Why is there zero damage by thermite to steel at the WTC? Answer the simple question and you see Jones is nuts.
Yes...

...and it it is simple way beyond just the aspect of thermXte.

There was no CD. There is no evidence of CD by thermXte or any other demolition tool.

This whole excursion into dust analyses is because we are prepared to humour truthers. Some people enjoy the sciency stuff. Some enjoy baiting truthers or trolls. But the whole topic is a waste of time.

There was no CD.

Even if there had been 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte at each corner of both towers - complete with flashing lights and big signs saying "Get your thermXte here - help demolish the WTC!!!!" it wasn't used because there was CD.

The discussion is one of many which have gone down rabbit burrows leading nowhere. Why??? Because we are prepared to chase the truthers into any sort of nonsense.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 12:15 PM   #1214
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Of course I answered your question.
No, you didn't. I asked "Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!
"

A full enumeration of the possible answers to a question "Do you agree" is
  1. Yes, I agree
  2. No, I disagree
  3. I don't know / undecided
Your reply inculded or implied none of these possibilities.

So please try againm, without evasions:


Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!
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 12th January 2013, 03:10 PM   #1215
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
He's dodged 3 times already by hiding up the skirt of personal attacks and tangents. This is the part where MM runs away and hides.
__________________
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 12th January 2013, 04:26 PM   #1216
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"No, you didn't. I asked "Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect!
"

A full enumeration of the possible answers to a question "Do you agree" is
  1. Yes, I agree
  2. No, I disagree
  3. I don't know / undecided
Your reply inculded or implied none of these possibilities.

So please try againm, without evasions:


Do you agree or disagree with Frank Legge's opinion, MM? (That the how-to is set out in the paper)

If you agree, please provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust, as you gather them from the paper - they are all in there then.
If you disagree, explain to us why you think Legge's reply to this inquiry is incorrect! "
I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

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 12th January 2013, 04:56 PM   #1217
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,081
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
.
Dr. Jones, Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, Mark Basile et al, have had no difficulty finding thermitic red chips in the WTC dust samples.
Naturally.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
.
I have no reason to believe that these scientists are collaborating in scientific fraud.
I have no doubt.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
.

The Bentham Paper authors put a great deal of time and effort into their work, and quite understandably are critical of Millette after he said he was going to follow the Bentham Paper methodology but because he was unequipped to do so, chose a testing method which his company was equipped to do.

MM
And they chose a method that would guarantee the results they wanted to achieve. That's why the chose to withhold the tests that would identify the materials they were telling you they were trying to detect. You're not claiming they are not doing this, right?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I agree with Frank Legge.
Why wouldn't you? It's what you want to hear.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
.

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM
I have no doubt you believe what you are told (as long as it supports your belief).
__________________
"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; 12th January 2013 at 05:00 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 05:19 PM   #1218
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM
Good. Thank you.

So, just to clarify: Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?
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 12th January 2013, 05:50 PM   #1219
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
I really don't see the point in this side show. The fact is, Bentham authors claimed chips a-d were nanothermite. Millette use the same method to find the same chips, which matched perfectly with chips a-d both visually and chemically. To argue that he selected and tested the wrong chips is nothing but desperate nonsense created by con artists to obscure the fact they're nothing but scientific frauds and liars.
__________________
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 12th January 2013, 07:12 PM   #1220
Tilorop
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 12
If the findings of Harris et al. in the Bentham-paper were actual correct, I doubt the truthers would have made any reservations in sharing the samples they used in the paper to others, such as Miller. Also, they would probably have released all avaiable data to strengthen their position by now.

This is afterall Pulitzerstuff...
Tilorop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 07:17 PM   #1221
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 19,078
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth.

MM
They had nothing to lose, none of them had any career left to speak of and they were already pariahs due to their intellectual dishonesty in shilling for the hucksters of the truth movement. Further, they have insulated themselves from charges of outright fraud because they won't release their samples to be tested independently.

What silliness.
The Big Dog 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 12th January 2013, 07:23 PM   #1222
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,255
Why do we have to worry about the motives of the authors? Regardless of whether they knew they were full of it or were legitimately fooled by their own incompetence, the fact of the matter is that the paper's flaws are damning to the point of negating the conclusions the authors drew.

So it's either that the authors were willing to be dishonest, or that they're foolish, but either way nothing about their motives rescues the work or their reputations.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2013, 08:56 PM   #1223
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 January 2013, 02:50 AM   #1224
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.
...and visually select red-gray bi-layered chips, as opposed to, say, blue balls or yellow-green-checkered pyramids.
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 13th January 2013, 06:24 AM   #1225
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.
Exactamondo! Reading the paper

Quote:
2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/ Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center destruction.
Note the word "isolation".

And that is all they did. There is no mention in the paper of finding chips that were paint, nor is there any mention of the method used to isolate thermite chips from paint chips. Funny how Millette uses the exact same method, finds red/gray chips with the same EDS spectrum for both layers, but concludes the material is paint with no thermite in sight.

It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.

MM - please quote the relevant part in the Harrit et al paper where they discuss the method of isolating thermite chips from paint chips.

(I think he still has me on ignore btw)
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 13th January 2013, 07:04 AM   #1226
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Does anyone live in or near central Massachussetts? If so please send me a private message.
__________________
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 13th January 2013, 07:12 AM   #1227
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Quote:
It looks like the only way they mention on how they isolated these chips was with a magnet.
Exactamondo! Reading the paper
Quote:
2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination

For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/ Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4. The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including some not on this research team) who have also found such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center destruction.
Note the word "isolation".

And that is all they did. There is no mention in the paper of finding chips that were paint, nor is there any mention of the method used to isolate thermite chips from paint chips. Funny how Millette uses the exact same method, finds red/gray chips with the same EDS spectrum for both layers, but concludes the material is paint with no thermite in sight.

It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.

MM - please quote the relevant part in the Harrit et al paper where they discuss the method of isolating thermite chips from paint chips.

(I think he still has me on ignore btw)
Here is what Millette did to isolate his chips:
Originally Posted by James Millette
...the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).
9119ProgressReport022912s Page 3 of 21
2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.
3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 5).
4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 6 and 7).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing.
Note the green and purple text both in the Harrit protocal and the Millette protocol: They are essentially the same.

Millette went one step further and selected chips with an "EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum". This is perfectly in line with the section "RESULTS - 1. 1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips" (p. 10-15), which talks at length about how they compared chips from all four dust samples, of which chips a-d are said to be "representative". Please read the entire section for context, but here are some key sentences:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips

Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected.
An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the
similarity of the chips
and to determine the chemistry and
materials that make up the chips.
...
All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. ... Similarities between the samples are already evident from these photographs.
...
... Fig. (5). These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples. The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. ...
...
(XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and a significant carbon (C) peak as well.

At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples.
It is clear from a close and educated reading of this section that the authors want to make it abundant clear that, in their opinion, ALL the red-gray chips isolated by the method described earlier, which ONLY involves magnetic attraction and visual separation of red-gray chips based on color and shape, are essentially the same.

Now everyone's backpaddeling and pretending they knew all along they were different - but no-one admits they were wrong! What a freaking bunch of lying hypocrites!

Millette's additional step of focusing on chips with EDS spectra rich in Fe, Si and Al is of course justified by Harrit e.al.'s affirmation that the representative chips have just that composition, AND Millette finds the very same 100 nm faceted grains that appear bright in the BSE, and the very platelets of 1 micron x 40 nm.






So Miragememories: What are we missing here? Which step was left out by Millette? Or what did he do wrong? Please be entirely specific, and make your explanation actionable for an expert researcher - or admit that you have no *********** clue!

Last edited by Oystein; 13th January 2013 at 07:15 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 13th January 2013, 08:03 AM   #1228
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"I agree with Frank Legge.

How to find the red thematic chips, can be found, by reading and understanding the Bentham Paper.

Why?

Because I believe the authors of the Bentham Paper had far more to lose by lying than by telling the truth."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"…So, just to clarify: Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?"
You need further clarification?

No wonder Legge does not want to converse with you.

Did Legge say every red chip they found in the WTC dust was found to be thermitic?
No.

Did Legge say every red chip that responded to magnetic attraction was found to be thermitic?
No.

Were there are other red chips in the WTC dust that responded to magnetic attraction but were not thermitic?
Yes

Could someone with zero qualifications and equipment for performing such research, someone like yourself, could they successfully know when they had obtained the right red chips for DSC testing?
No.

Should would-be researchers like Millette collaborate with the Bentham Paper authors in order to sincerely investigate their claims?
Yes.

Does it make sense for the Bentham Paper authors to refuse to cooperate with scientists whom they feel are too biased to be objective?
Yes.

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 13th January 2013, 08:39 AM   #1229
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
You need further clarification?
...
Yes. Perhaps I am dense

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questiomns I didn't ask? I asked:

Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
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 13th January 2013, 11:35 AM   #1230
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,855
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
............
It always amazes me that truthers can be so dishonest and wilfully blind when the facts are printed in black and white in a paper they champion, staring them in the face.
.............
By their logic tree, being right about their paper is secondary to what pleases them most - to believe they are right about the US inside job conspiracy. When their righteous ends justifies their lying means (misinterpreting data, invalid logic, hiding the falsifying chips testing), their cognitive dissonance is abated.
This dissonance is also decreased by running away, like Jones and Legge did in the face of Oystein's persistent analysis of their claims.
They can plausibly deny having read Sunstealer's analysis, and therefore need not rebut.
__________________
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.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 13th January 2013 at 11:49 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 13th January 2013, 03:03 PM   #1231
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
^^^ concisely and well stated.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2013, 03:29 PM   #1232
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questio[ns] I didn't ask? I asked:

Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
You should have been a lawyer, Oystein!
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2013, 04:50 PM   #1233
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes. Perhaps I am dense

Why don't you answer the question instead of making up questiomns I didn't ask? I asked:

Reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - and it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics?
This is technically two questions, each of which can be answered "Yes", "No" or "Don't know", which completely enumerates the possibilities.

1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
2. (If yes to 1.) Do you assert that it is thus not necessary to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
Your questions, understandably, are too simplistic.

In my opinion,The Bentham Paper provides sufficient direction for any competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors.

The collection method uses a magnetic filter which isolates all the red chip material with thermitic properties, AND, any other material, red or otherwise, that is magnetically attracted.

They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.

No doubt someone who has already performed this selection process will work much faster than a fellow scientist having to familiarize themselves with the 'look' of the thermitic red chips amongst all the red chips.

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 13th January 2013, 05:04 PM   #1234
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Your questions, understandably, are too simplistic.
My questions cut too close to you bone, you're bleeding silly, everybody can see it, and you know everybody can see it

However this...
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
In my opinion,The Bentham Paper provides sufficient direction for any competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors.
...appears to answer this question...
1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
... in the affirmative:
"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".

Now please attend to the second question also:

2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?



Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The collection method uses a magnetic filter which isolates all the red chip material with thermitic properties, AND, any other material, red or otherwise, that is magnetically attracted.
We'll get to this later

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.
We'll get to this later.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
No doubt someone who has already performed this selection process will work much faster than a fellow scientist having to familiarize themselves with the 'look' of the thermitic red chips amongst all the red chips.
What a silly, useless assertion.


Please do yourself a favor, MM, and answer only the 2. question in your reply. I won't engage you on anything else.

Stop the dodging already
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 14th January 2013, 01:48 AM   #1235
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chris: Some additional info about WTC1/2 steel/floor trusses:

1) According to this article from 2009, "more World Trade Center wreckage joined the collection the Port Authority already kept at Kennedy International Airport this week. Pieces were trucked in from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland." Altogether 25 trailers were employed, hence a lot of steel had to be moved from NIST to Hangar 17...

2) Here is a Table A-8 from NCSTAR 1-3b report:



These specific samples are numbered/catalogued, so perhaps NIST should know where they are now (?)
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 14th January 2013, 05:39 AM   #1236
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They still have to examine the red chips they've collected.
So where in the paper do they state that they have separated thermitic red chips from non-thermitic red chips? Where is the analysis on non-thermitic red chips?

There is no mention of any other material other than thermite being removed from the dust by magnet.

If these people were competent then they would have not only made this clear in the paper, but also given evidence for it. Therefore, there should be EDX spectra and SEM photos of at least one paint sample or other red material in order to distinguish that material from the thermite.

Thanks for pointing out failure number 245 in the paper.
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 14th January 2013, 07:55 AM   #1237
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...They still have to examine the red chips they've collected."
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
"So where in the paper do they state that they have separated thermitic red chips from non-thermitic red chips?..."
Many of the red chips in the WTC dust were not attracted magnetically.

The scientists learned that by using magnetism, all the thermitic red chips could be easily separated from a large all-residue WTC dust sample.

But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.

In the laboratory the thermitic red chips and the non-thermitic red chips revealed themselves during DSC testing.

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 14th January 2013, 08:19 AM   #1238
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Many of the red chips in the WTC dust were not attracted magnetically.

The scientists learned that by using magnetism, all the thermitic red chips could be easily separated from a large all-residue WTC dust sample.

But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.

In the laboratory the thermitic red chips and the non-thermitic red chips revealed themselves during DSC testing.

MM
Here is Dr Millette's method which mirrors Harrit et al.

Quote:
Methods

In order to confirm that the samples chosen had the characteristics of WTC dust, the samples were examined by stereomicroscope and by polarized light microscopy (PLM) according to the procedures described in Turner et al., 20054 (Figures 2 and 3). The analytical procedures used to characterize the red/gray chips were based on the criteria for the particles of interest in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives5 and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison.6 The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al.1 are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4). The spectrum may also contain small peaks related to other elements. To that end, the following protocol was performed on each of the four WTC dust samples.

1. The dust sample particles contained in a plastic bag were drawn across a magnet and those attracted to the magnet were collected (Figure 5).
9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web Page 3 of 21

2. Using a stereomicroscope, particle chips showing the characteristic red/gray were removed and washed in clean water.

3. The particles were dried and mounted on a carbon adhesive film on an SEM stub and photographed (Figure 6).

4. Analysis of the surfaces of the chips was done by SEM-EDS at 20 kV without any added conductive coating (Figures 7 and 8).

Red/gray particles that matched the criteria (attracted to a magnet and an EDS Al-Si-Fe spectrum) were then considered particles of interest and subjected to additional analytical testing. The additional tests included: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); SEM-EDS of cross-sections; low temperature ashing and residue analysis by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with selected area electron diffraction (SAED) and EDS; muffle furnace ashing and residue analysis by PLM and TEM-SAED-EDS; ultra-microtome sectioning of the red layer and analysis by TEM-SAED-EDS; and solvent tests.
So Millette uses the exact same separation technique AND matches the red EDX spectrum to samples a-d in the Harrit paper.

Do you agree that samples a-d and Millette's samples are the same material?

Where is the DSC thermograph for non-thermitic red/gray chips in Harrit et al?

Last edited by Sunstealer; 14th January 2013 at 08:20 AM.
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 14th January 2013, 08:19 AM   #1239
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Chris: Some additional info about WTC1/2 steel/floor trusses:

1) According to this article from 2009, "more World Trade Center wreckage joined the collection the Port Authority already kept at Kennedy International Airport this week. Pieces were trucked in from the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland." Altogether 25 trailers were employed, hence a lot of steel had to be moved from NIST to Hangar 17...

2) Here is a Table A-8 from NCSTAR 1-3b report:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=7240

These specific samples are numbered/catalogued, so perhaps NIST should know where they are now (?)
Thanks Ivan I will ask NIST about this!
__________________
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 14th January 2013, 09:44 AM   #1240
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
But Is it really necessary for them to state the obvious, as in; "oh, fellow scientists who wish to peer-review our work, this is also a major separation of 'red chips from non-thermitic red chips'?

Of course there would be some remaining non-thermitic red chips.
Yes, it is necessary.


You seem to have answered this question...
1. Do you assert that reading and understanding the paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
... in the affirmative:
"Yes, I, MM, am of the opinion that reading and understanding the Bentham paper would suffice for an expert to know how to distinguish thermitic chips from paint chips before doing any "thermal" test on them".

Now please attend to the second question also:
2. Do you assert that it is thus not necessary (for a competent scientist with credentials comparable to the Paper's authors) to contact the authors to get clued in on the specifics - yes, no, or don't know, MM?
And stop the dodging already. Be a man of conviction, and state what you believe.

Edited by jhunter1163:  Edited for civility.

Last edited by jhunter1163; 14th January 2013 at 02:52 PM.
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
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 08:37 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.