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 21st January 2013, 12:56 PM   #1441
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I donīt know why you guys make this look so complicated. Africanus was misunderstanding my reply to Sunstealer. I know millette has clean chips to compare to clean harrit chips, but it was sunstealer who picked the only harrit chip that was not clean and tried to compare it to some clean millette chip and this tnemec paint. This does not look good and it seems invalid since it is based on the assumption that the dirty chip is not dirty.
Why do you criticize Sunstealer for using data from Harrit e.al.? Why don't you criticize Harrit e.al. and demand that the MEK-chip not be considered at all, as it has not been shown to be of the same material as any other chips used in the paper to reach their conclusions?
We don't know if there are any "nano-sized" grains in there
We don't know if any chip similar to the MEK-chip was at all tested in the DSC
Etc.
Amateurish, bad, useless work.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You say it "matches" but as i pointed out to Sunstealer the match may not be that good considering small Zn peak. The real point is that most of this Zn disappears after MEK washing according to figures 16 to 18 in Harrit, so there is no longer a match after the dirty chip has been cleaned. The dirty chip is dirty for sure and does not seem to match Tnemec once clean.
You obviously don't understand the XEDS technique.

For Fig 14, Jones scanned a large portion of the surface, thus capturing a more representative distribution of its constituents. For Fig. 16-18, the beam was deliberately focussed on small spots rich in certain elements that Jones was interested in. These spectra do not prove at all that there are no zinc chromate pigments in that paint, he may simply have chosen to focus away from these pigments. He should have done another broad-area scan after the soak. Also, Fig. 17 was done with a 10 keV beam energy instead of 20 keV - no explanation is given. It might mask the heavier elements, such as zinc or chrome.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why is this such a big deal, can it not be laclede or some other paint? Are there any other options besides paint, such as insulation for fire proofing or maybe electrical cables, wiring?
Why do you have this almost panicky need to deny Tnemec??
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 01:53 PM   #1442
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Kminek: And, even when (hypothetically) there was some thermitic reaction, its exotherm must be "hidden" in the exotherm of polymer burning. You do not agree?

We can easily agree that real experiments would be better than indirect data from the literature, so let us wait for possible further experiments of Jim Millette...
You are the only one here that seems interested in real discussion. I donīt know why the thermite exotherm would be hidden if it is possible to mix organic stuff with thermite. You show some peaks that look similar to harrit data but my point is we need this data for paint similar to the wtc stuff, on a graph with the same X and Y. So I think we agree that a real experiment would be the way to debunk harrit data. I donīt know why everyone else here is so touchy about this.

Quote:
Millette did not write that, I suppose that also his dried chips were again hard/brittle (e.g. like MEK chip). But Millette can be asked in this respect. Note, that Harrit et al did not write if the MEK chip was softened when swollen, but it is something which can be supposed from
Supposing wonīt do for scientific papers. The way Harrit paper is set up it looks like his chips remain hard soaked while paint softens. The way Millette paper is set up it looks like his chips soften. This sort of stuff along with titanium in millette chips leave the paper wide open for the truther defense of different chips. Millette should prevent this.

Quote:
You have just inspired me to perform one extremely simple experiment. About 3 hours ago, I put several chips of this epoxy sample into MEK solvent and... let's wait ca 50 hours what will happen with it.
Thank you, i hope this inspiration will make it all the way to millette. If you can do more tests you should, including getting the spectra and dsc tests. You seem to know your way with paints so maybe you could make some replication paint for millette, maybe even imitate the redgray chips by painting a batch of ground down metal flakes. Send some to millette and some to harrit. More tests is the way to go, I donīt know why your buddies here are so touchy about it.

Quote:
Since you've been already successful to offend almost all participants in this debate
Yes they seem offended but i cant see why. They call me stupid or a truther for asking questions, but this is silly. Criticizing millette is not the same as being against him, it helps to make his paper better. The really silly part is that no one seems to be offended by obvious trolling by some members here, and some really stupid and offensive remarks.
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 02:10 PM   #1443
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Millette found no thermite. There is no evidence of thermite used on 911. There are zero piles of thermite product, big ugly piles of iron. There is no thermite iron fused to WTC steel, like in the idiotic videos produced by nuts like Cole. Where did the pounds, or in Harrit's case TONS of thermite product, called iron, go? The idiots in 911 truth, which you call
My truther nutcase of a cousin tells me
, and twoofies ignore the fact no thermite was used, and go with the fantasy of thermite. They can't produce evidence.
You'd think that with "hundreds of tons" of thermite being ignited high in a skyscraper, it would have produced at least 50 tons of molten iron, resulting in globules resembling iron-nickel meteorites (photo) being everywhere, not to mention huge piles of debris welded together, which would have to be secretly cut up and smuggled off-site under cover of darkness and armed guards threatening anyone trying to take a look. Really hard to do when the site was visible from surviving hi-rises like One Liberty Plaza and the Millenium Hilton.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Iron-Nickel Meteorites.jpg (60.4 KB, 0 views)
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 21st January 2013, 02:20 PM   #1444
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
@jtl

Please could you clarify what you think Millette's role is.

Please explain what his objective was from the start.

Thanks
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 21st January 2013, 02:29 PM   #1445
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is an old argument that I used on some truthers long ago, but I no longer try it because it seems debunked. The 3.9 yield is for straight old school thermite but it does not apply to new mixtures with added materials that may increase the yield, and Harrit does mention the organic part. But maybe it is possible to show that 7.5 is too much?
No, laddie, the yield for ferric oxide thermite is fixed by the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics, and there is nothing that anyone can do to raise it. There are other thermites, such as molybdenum trioxide thermite, with higher yields, but then we should have been hearing about "molybdenum-rich spheres" being found, along with its co-product, aluminum oxide (alumina), which we haven't heard reported from any truther dust study. Alumina, being only about half the density of iron, will be produced in about twice the amount, by volume, than iron.
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 21st January 2013, 02:48 PM   #1446
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: Why do you criticize Sunstealer for using data from Harrit e.al.
This is hogwash and you know it. I did not criticize him for using data, it was because he cherry picked the only dirty chip in the paper to compare to some other clean millette chip and known paint. He says they are similar or the same but that is no longer true when the dirty chip has been washed.

Quote:
You obviously don't understand the XEDS technique.

For Fig 14, Jones scanned a large portion of the surface, thus capturing a more representative distribution of its constituents. For Fig. 16-18, the beam was deliberately focussed on small spots rich in certain elements that Jones was interested in. These spectra do not prove at all that there are no zinc chromate pigments in that paint, he may simply have chosen to focus away from these pigments.
Donīt pretend to know any better than i do. They show all 3 main regions in 16 to 18, including one for the matrix material so you have a poor excuse. Besides, you do not seem to agree with Sunstealer who said the signals are still there, so maybe you think he is lying or maybe you know better?

Quote:
Also, Fig. 17 was done with a 10 keV beam energy instead of 20 keV - no explanation is given.
They seem to have all used 10 keV. Only fig 18 used 15kev and fig 11 used 20kev, and considering figs 16 to 18 are about figuring out which elements are separate it is not hard to figure out why they did not use 20 keV, it makes them blend together:

Quote:
The beam energy (20 keV) is such
that the volume of material from which the X-ray signal is
generated is larger than the particles. Hence, some Al and Si
are seen in Fig. (11b) which may not be inherent in the fac-
eted grains, and some Fe is seen in Fig. (11a), which may
not be inherent in the plate-like particles.
Maybe you are not the expert you think you are?

Quote:
It might mask the heavier elements, such as zinc or chrome.
What are you basing that on, did fig 14 need 20kev to find Zn? How about millette? What about jones and his tnemec sample?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl: Why is this such a big deal, can it not be laclede or some other paint? Are there any other options besides paint, such as insulation for fire proofing or maybe electrical cables, wiring?
Oystein: Why do you have this almost panicky need to deny Tnemec??
Who is panicking? Why dont you just answer the question? Why the drama?
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 03:42 PM   #1447
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Redwood: No, laddie, the yield for ferric oxide thermite is fixed by the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics, and there is nothing that anyone can do to raise it.
You mean nothing besides adding extra chemicals to it like the organic matrix. This can also make nonexplosive thermite explosive.

Quote:
pgimeno: two of them still show an average energy density (including the gray layer) greater than that of thermite, proving it is not thermite alone.
Good. No one is saying it is thermite alone. Harrit claims it a mixture of nanothermite in a organic matrix.

Quote:
pgimeno: Even if the chips were thermite + organic matrix, comparing the traces would still make no sense, because they show different materials in action with different thermal properties. Understood now?
You contradict yourself. You began your arguments about the dsc curves by saying that harrit curves could not be superthermite because it has different properties. But now you seem to have realized that different compositions are expected to have different properties, so congrats. Comparing paint to the different superthermite traces is necessary to show that it can be as narrow. Understood now?

Quote:
I can understand that you call "weak points" the fact that he didn't do an unnecessary DSC test, but what mistakes are you talking about?
Have gone over this several times. it can be disputed that millette has the same chips because they appear different in some respects and he is vague on some details and lacks some tests. it can be said that paint chips wont match harrit ignition tests until millette proves otherwise. i am not going over this for you again

Last edited by jtl; 21st January 2013 at 04:14 PM.
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 04:26 PM   #1448
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is hogwash and you know it. I did not criticize him for using data, it was because he cherry picked the only dirty chip in the paper to compare to some other clean millette chip and known paint. He says they are similar or the same but that is no longer true when the dirty chip has been washed.
It is not Sunstealer who does the cherry-picking at all!! It is Harrit and Jones who cherry-pick data!
How on earth do YOU know that the data from the unwashed chip can't be used?
Sunstealer is exactly right: The XEDS spectrum for the MEK-soaked chip is so damned similar to Tnemec, and also to some of Millette's chips, that the bare-assed assertion made by Jones, that Zn in that chip must be contamination, is just that: A bare-assed asertion, a hand-wave.

I think it is possible that the strong Ca-signal comes, in part, from gypsum, as does the S signal. All the rest of the signal is exactly what you'd expect for Tnemec.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Donīt pretend to know any better than i do.
I don't pretend - I do in fact know better than you. Your ignorance about every aspect of the Harrit and Millette papers, and the methods used thereim, screams out of every paragraph you write. You are really very very far from even a basic understanding.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
They show all 3 main regions in 16 to 18, including one for the matrix material so you have a poor excuse. Besides, you do not seem to agree with Sunstealer who said the signals are still there, so maybe you think he is lying or maybe you know better?
This doesn't even make sense - your wording betrays your lack of understanding.
What "3 main regions" are you talking about??

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
They seem to have all used 10 keV. Only fig 18 used 15kev and fig 11 used 20kev,
This is plain wrong.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and considering figs 16 to 18 are about figuring out which elements are separate it is not hard to figure out why they did not use 20 keV, it makes them blend together:
This is plain wrong.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Maybe you are not the expert you think you are?
I am 100 times the expert you are. You just proved it with the total analytical desaster that your previous short paragraph was.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
What are you basing that on, did fig 14 need 20kev to find Zn? How about millette? What about jones and his tnemec sample?
You obviously don't understand XEDS.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Who is panicking? Why dont you just answer the question? Why the drama?
Sunstealer says that the MEK-chip is Tnemec because its XEDS spectrum matches that of Tnemec in so much detail, and the macro-description (layer thickness, color) such a good match, it would be utter folly to deny it it, in fact, most likely Tnemec.

The same way, the XEDS spectra and visual appearance of chips a-d are such a perfect match for LaClede, it would be utter folly to deny they are most likely LaClede paint.

And the XEDS spectra for chips a-d are so very different from Tnemec, and the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip so very different from LaClede, that they just can't be that.

Oh, and all these spectra show so little Aluminium, and so much hydrocarbon matrix, that this alone rules out thermite.

The DSC-results rule out thermite, too, by the way.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 04:27 PM   #1449
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This is hogwash and you know it. I did not criticize him for using data, it was because he cherry picked the only dirty chip in the paper to compare to some other clean millette chip and known paint. He says they are similar or the same but that is no longer true when the dirty chip has been washed.
Nope, no cherry picking occurred at all. The aim of the post you are referring to was to show how the paper and truthers are incorrect when they postulate that the MEK was contaminated. I've since posted and clarified exactly, the thought process and logic that leads me to that conclusion.

You are using a strawman. That is something that we often see from truthers when arguing a point.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Donīt pretend to know any better than i do. They show all 3 main regions in 16 to 18, including one for the matrix material so you have a poor excuse. Besides, you do not seem to agree with Sunstealer who said the signals are still there, so maybe you think he is lying or maybe you know better?
Yes you do pretend to know better because you are claiming that there is a problem with Figs 16, 17 and 18 whose spectra don't show certain elements observed in the pre MEK soaked spectra. Read the words written underneath those graphics which explain exactly what was analysed.

I note that you haven't addressed my statements in reply to you queries regarding this. (ignore if already done so) Oystein is correct, he has a high level of reading comprehension and has spent significant time learning about the scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy in order to understand what he's looking at. I doubt Oystein has ever seen a SEM in the flesh let alone operated one, however, he has educated himself to a level that is sufficient to understand the capabilities and limitation of the equipment.

It's best if you familiarise yourself with the equipment and it's capabilities before you start commentating upon data from said equipment. There is no shame in this - SEM specialised equipment in the scheme of things.

I do not say, "the signals are there". Again you are misunderstanding what I wrote and then making a strawman out of it.

I clearly say that the labelling of the peak in fig 18 at 1 KeV is incorrect. I've explained to you that this peak should be labelled Zn due to the overlap in k-alpha and k-beta lines between these two elements.

You have ignored this response. Twice.

Similarly Fig 18 shows significant peaks for elements P (Phosphorous) and Cl (Chlorine) that are not present in fig 14 pre-MEK soaking. Why are you not focussing on that? Why are you focussing on one element even when that has been explained to you?

Again this is a classic example of what truthers do. They focus on one item that has been explained, refuse the explanation, but completely ignore anomalies that are equivalent using your logic. If you are going to pontificate on lack of element peaks in the EDX spectrum then at least be consistent.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
They seem to have all used 10 keV. Only fig 18 used 15kev and fig 11 used 20kev, and considering figs 16 to 18 are about figuring out which elements are separate it is not hard to figure out why they did not use 20 keV, it makes them blend together:


I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you please explain in detail regarding your explanation for differing KeV energies and how this "blends them together". Thanks.



Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Maybe you are not the expert you think you are?
I see that you are using the standard truther tactic of totally ignoring what the poster wrote and instead attacking the posters credentials.

This automatically red-flags you as someone who is way, way, way out of their depth. Instead you should be trying to understand what Oystein wrote and why it is of significance.

Perhaps you may care to educate us all on how acceleration voltage influences the interaction volume and how that is dependent upon different elements.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
What are you basing that on, did fig 14 need 20kev to find Zn?
Harrit et al is specific with regard to the parameters used in their analysis.

Quote:
An FEI XL30-SFEG scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to perform secondary-electron (SE) imaging and backscattered electron (BSE) imaging. The SE imaging was used to look at the surface topography and porosity of the red/gray chips, while the BSE imaging was used to distinguish variations in average atomic number, Z. The microscope was also equipped with an EDAX X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) system. The XEDS system uses a silicon detector (SiLi) with resolution better than 135eV. The spectrum resolution was set to 10 eV per channel. Operating conditions for the acquired XEDS spectra were 20 keV beam energy (unless otherwise specified) and 40-120 second acquisition time (livetime). XEDS maps were acquired using the same system at a beam energy of 10 keV.
Page 9, second paragraph under - 2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination.

So there you have it. Unless specified the beam energy was 20KeV. There is no specification for fig 14. If you focus the spot beam on a particular point, with a set eV, then the characteristics of the interaction volume will change. That's the point. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the SEM before commenting further.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
How about millette?
What about Millette? Read the progress report -it tells you the information I think you want regarding eV. N.B. It's a progress report and not a paper btw.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
What about jones and his tnemec sample?
Why don't you ask him? (Considering the statement on the operating parameters in Harrit et al there's the likelihood that 20KeV was used)

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Who is panicking? Why dont you just answer the question? Why the drama?
No one is panicking at all. We have answered all of your questions, you just seem to ignore the answers.

We have encountered many people "just asking questions" and they nearly always turn out to be truthers, because they ask questions, but never acknowledge the answers, often mis-understand the answers and seek to engage people on minutiae.

That's why you are getting short-thrift.

If you are genuine then I'd advise you to ask questions in depth and acknowledge the answers given, indicating whether you understand them or not.
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 21st January 2013, 04:34 PM   #1450
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You mean nothing besides adding extra chemicals to it like the organic matrix. This can also make nonexplosive thermite explosive.
...
You don't understand the argument. You don't understand DSC. You don't understand enthalpy of reaction.

Harrit e.al.'s data, taken all together, proves that at least almost all of the energy came from burning the organic matrix. >95% actually, with 100% being a distinct and highly likely value.
The data contains no proof whatsoever that any thermite reaction at all tool place.



This argument "you can make thermite more energetic by mixing it with organics" is much like saying "beer can be healthier and have more vitamin C if you mix it with orange juice" - it's never the beer that's vC-rich, it's always the orange juice! And this case, you'd be mixing 95% orange juice with 5% beer - and calling it "beer". That borders on fraudulent.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 04:35 PM   #1451
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Have gone over this several times. it can be disputed that millette has the same chips because they appear different in some respects and he is vague on some details and lacks some tests. it can be said that paint chips wont match harrit ignition tests until millette proves otherwise. i am not going over this for you gain
OK lets try this.

Here is Fig 7 in the Harrit et al paper.



Do you agree that these EDX spectra; a, b, c and d, show that the red layer is the same material? i.e. a=b=c=d.

Answer Yes or No.
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 21st January 2013, 05:05 PM   #1452
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: Since Millette's chips contain no contamination and at least 6 of his chips match the MEK chip before soaking we can safely say that the MEK chip was not contaminated otherwise the spectra wouldn't match.
You are deluding yourself if you actually believe this. It is almost 100% for sure that all chips were contaminated before cleaning after storage in bags full of fine dust, and the MEK chip was no different. It is simply irrational to think that because some clean millette chips are a match for a dirty chip, that means the dirty chip is not dirty.

Quote:
On the subject of the "missing Zn peak" - I've already told you that the Na peak is labelled incorrectly and should be Zn in fig 18. This was written in the spoiler section - click on it to read the explanation.


If you are worried about a missing Zn peak in the other figs post MEK then there is absolutely no help for you because you don't understand the writing below figs 16 & 17. Guess what they don't find any Fe in fig 16 and 17 so why aren't you bleating about that?
I already read your explanation and answered Oystein about the writing below the figures. But you ignore the answers. There is a trace of fe in both 16 and 17. there is some overlap in all 3 figures. Fig 15 shows it is really difficult to pick some one area free of specific chemicals. And what happened to all the other stuff from fig 14, the Zn, the S, the Ca, Cr, S?
All hiding in some magical unspecified area? How convenient.
Why did fig 14 never have a Zn peak that matches the known Tnemec sample? Why did it go from a tiny peak to almost disappearing after washing, just like a lot of other stuff from fig14?

Quote:
You are sounding more and more like a truther every day. i.e. someone who knows nothing about the subject but trying to argue with those that do. Remember you already told everyone you are not an expert.
You are sounding more and more like a preacher, and someone without the credentials you claim for your authoritarian style. If you are such an expert and so sure of everything you say, why dont you put your money where your mouth is and publish your results? Why did you not do it years ago when you claimed to have debunked Harrit? i think it is obvious that a published paper would have done a lot more good to debunk harrit than than some cheap talk amongst people behind fake names. But you canīt can you?
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 05:26 PM   #1453
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl
You mean nothing besides adding extra chemicals to it like the organic matrix. This can also make nonexplosive thermite explosive.
Oystein: You don't understand the argument. You don't understand DSC. You don't understand enthalpy of reaction.
No you dont understand. Lets get this straight. The above has nothing to do with the argument about harrit chips and if they are superthermite.

It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite. This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.

All those who understand this say so. If no one does then you can all go back to reading Ron Mossad and I will stop wasting my time.
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 05:28 PM   #1454
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You are deluding yourself if you actually believe this. It is almost 100% for sure that all chips were contaminated before cleaning after storage in bags full of fine dust, and the MEK chip was no different. It is simply irrational to think that because some clean millette chips are a match for a dirty chip, that means the dirty chip is not dirty.
If a dirty child looks just like your son, would you reject that child as your son just because he's dirty?

If the chip was so dirty that it couldn't be identified, then we couldn't identify it.

But we CAN identify it. Which means: The dirt is insignificant.

You are handwaving.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I already read your explanation and answered Oystein about the writing below the figures. But you ignore the answers.
Your answers were plain wrong.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
There is a trace of fe in both 16 and 17. there is some overlap in all 3 figures.
Meaningless utterings. You obviously don't understand XEDS.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Fig 15 shows it is really difficult to pick some one area free of specific chemicals. And what happened to all the other stuff from fig 14, the Zn, the S, the Ca, Cr, S?
All hiding in some magical unspecified area? How convenient.
Why did fig 14 never have a Zn peak that matches the known Tnemec sample?
What??? Are you saying that Zn is missing in Fig 15?? And you think this means there is not Zn???

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why did fig 14 never have a Zn peak that matches the known Tnemec sample?
It DOES have a Zn peak that matchhes that of Tnemec. That is one of the main reasons we are confident it's Tnemec.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why did it go from a tiny peak to almost disappearing after washing, just like a lot of other stuff from fig14?
This has been explained to you several times, by at least 3 posters.
Because Jones specically and deliberately focused on small spots rich in other pigments.

You could just as well ask: "Why did Al go from a tiny peak in Fig 14 to almost disappearing after washing in Fig 16?"

And the answer would be the same: Because that beam was focused on a particular other pigment, in that case silica (which is a filler, not pigment)

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You are sounding more and more like a preacher, and someone without the credentials you claim for your authoritarian style. If you are such an expert and so sure of everything you say, why dont you put your money where your mouth is and publish your results? Why did you not do it years ago when you claimed to have debunked Harrit? i think it is obvious that a published paper would have done a lot more good to debunk harrit than than some cheap talk amongst people behind fake names. But you canīt can you?
Typical truther tactic. You don't understand the content, the argument, so you attack the form. Piss poor pathetic.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:34 PM   #1455
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
No you dont understand. Lets get this straight. The above has nothing to do with the argument about harrit chips and if they are superthermite.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite.
But the first question is: Is this thermite at all?
Amswer: There is zero evidence it is.

Consider this:

"Raspberry jelly is red and has a higher energy output and properties than normal thermite. Raspberry jelly exists. Therefore these chips could be Raspberry jelly."

Sounds spectacularly stupid? Well, that is exactly like your argument sounds.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.
"Organic component in air" most assuredly means that it cannot be explosive. But you wouldn't know, as you don't understand a single thing here.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
All those who understand this say so.
Nonsense. You have been fooled by con men because you are ignorant and gullible.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 05:38 PM   #1456
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,863
Quote:
You are sounding more and more like a preacher, and someone without the credentials you claim for your authoritarian style. If you are such an expert and so sure of everything you say, why dont you put your money where your mouth is and publish your results? Why did you not do it years ago when you claimed to have debunked Harrit? i think it is obvious that a published paper would have done a lot more good to debunk harrit than than some cheap talk amongst people behind fake names. But you canīt can you?
The harrit et al paper is self debunking, that appears to be what you're missing here. The paper proves that the chips they have are paint.

They didn't post their paper in a peer review journal so it has no scientific merit. What would the point in writing a peer reviewed paper just to debunk a self-debunking paper be? It's a waste of time.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 21st January 2013, 05:49 PM   #1457
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: It is not Sunstealer who does the cherry-picking at all!! It is Harrit and Jones who cherry-pick data!
How on earth do YOU know that the data from the unwashed chip can't be used?
Sunstealer is exactly right: The XEDS spectrum for the MEK-soaked chip is so damned similar to Tnemec, and also to some of Millette's chips, that the bare-assed assertion made by Jones, that Zn in that chip must be contamination, is just that: A bare-assed asertion, a hand-wave.

I think it is possible that the strong Ca-signal comes, in part, from gypsum, as does the S signal. All the rest of the signal is exactly what you'd expect for Tnemec.
Jesus, you actually dont understand this? You are so deluded that you say that there is no cherry picking but at the same time you cherry pick Cs and S signals as contamination while you claim the Zn is not contamination. This is cherry picking 101 buddy.

Quote:
If a dirty child looks just like your son, would you reject that child as your son just because he's dirty?

If the chip was so dirty that it couldn't be identified, then we couldn't identify it.

But we CAN identify it. Which means: The dirt is insignificant.
Your answers and beginning to look not only deluded but downright nuts.
But at least you acknowledge there is contamination, unlike sunstealer.

Quote:
It DOES have a Zn peak that matchhes that of Tnemec. That is one of the main reasons we are confident it's Tnemec.
Even if we allow for your cherry picking of Zn as not contamination, you still have to have a certain amount of Zn to match Tnemec. I noted that even before washing, the Zn peak is no match for the peak in the example given by jones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite.
This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.

Oystein: But the first question is: Is this thermite at all?
Amswer: There is zero evidence it is.
Listen Oystein, acknowledge the above or stick to Ron Mossad. None of you should engage in any debate about superthermite if you cant tell the difference between std thermite and superthermite.

Quote:
Nonsense. You have been fooled by con men because you are ignorant and gullible.
This attitude looks even worse on you than Sunstealer. You both sound like fanatical "no planes" truthers ranting about holograms. Snap out of it.

Last edited by jtl; 21st January 2013 at 06:09 PM.
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 06:03 PM   #1458
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... Your answers and beginning to look not only deluded but downright nuts.
But at least you acknowledge there is contamination, unlike sunstealer.
...
Listen Oystein, acknowledge the above or stick to Ron Mossad.
You don't understand DSC, or thermite.
Do you understand no thermite was used on 911 to destroy the WTC complex? This is a simple yes or no. You don't seem to know much about chemistry and offer no insights. Do you understand no thermite was used on 911? Yes or No. easy question, easy answer.
I have given you the answers, pick one; please.
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 21st January 2013, 06:12 PM   #1459
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
No you dont understand. Lets get this straight. The above has nothing to do with the argument about harrit chips and if they are superthermite.

It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite. This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.

All those who understand this say so. If no one does then you can all go back to reading Ron Mossad and I will stop wasting my time.
If you are trying to prove that any kind of thermite was used, whether super-duper or not, then you are wasting your time.
dafydd 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 21st January 2013, 06:33 PM   #1460
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Jesus, you actually dont understand this? You are so deluded that you say that there is no cherry picking but at the same time you cherry pick Cs and S signals as contamination while you claim the Zn is not contamination. This is cherry picking 101 buddy.
It's your son's face behind a thin coating of gypsum.
You'd deny your own son.

No, laddy. Not cherry picking.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Your answers and beginning to look not only deluded but downright nuts.
But at least you acknowledge there is contamination, unlike sunstealer.
I am more likely to be wrong about gypsum than about Tnemec.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Even if we allow for your cherry picking of Zn as not contamination, you still have to have a certain amount of Zn to match Tnemec. I noted that even before washing, the Zn peak is no match for the peak in the example given by jones.
Can you give reasons for that assessment?

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Listen Oystein, acknowledge the above or stick to Ron Mossad. None of you should engage in any debate about superthermite if you cant tell the difference between std thermite and superthermite.
Strawman.
You still don't understand the argument.
Raspberry jelly. Think about it!

There is no evidence for the presence of thermite at all.
There is no evidence the thermite reaction occurred at all.
From this follows that there is no evidence for superthermite, or as much as there is evidence for raspberry jelly.

However, there is clear evidence that the organic matrix burned. Very. Slowly.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This attitude looks even worse on you than Sunstealer. You both sound like fanatical "no planes" truthers ranting about holograms. Snap out of it.
You deserve it.
You must know that you are miles out of your depth here.
Only the really stupid wouldn't even know when they are this far out of their depth.


But let's see if you understand a little bit about XEDS:

Here is Fig 7 in the Harrit et al paper.



Do you agree that these EDX spectra; a, b, c and d, show that the red layer is the same material? i.e. a=b=c=d.

Answer Yes or No.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 06:45 PM   #1461
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
This has been explained to you several times, by at least 3 posters.
Because Jones specically and deliberately focused on small spots rich in other pigments.
I was wondering, isn't an alternative explanation for the smaller peak that the energy of the specific spectrum in fig. 18 is 15 KeV instead of 20?
__________________
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 21st January 2013, 06:55 PM   #1462
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Good. No one is saying it is thermite alone. Harrit claims it a mixture of nanothermite in a organic matrix.
Harrit can claim whatever he wants. There is no proof of that whatsoever in the paper.

I said it is not "thermite alone" because it follows logically from the comparison with "thermite alone". I didn't mean to imply it was "thermite" but not "alone".


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You contradict yourself. You began your arguments about the dsc curves by saying that harrit curves could not be superthermite because it has different properties. But now you seem to have realized that different compositions are expected to have different properties, so congrats.
I do not contradict myself. Once established that the energy density proves the compared materials are different, it makes no sense to compare the shapes or the heights or the widths of the peaks and claim that because they are similar, that is indicative of anything, which is what you attempted. If you've moved your goalposts since then, please let me know.

DSC was a stupid test to perform to start with. The results are just as inconclusive as expected. They merely do show one thing the chips are NOT. And that is thermite alone.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Comparing paint to the different superthermite traces is necessary to show that it can be as narrow. Understood now?
No. I don't understand where you get that from, unless you mean that Jones et al. should do it, as it's their burden of proof. They haven't established that the chips are not paint, let alone that it is thermite. Ask them to perform proper experiments that do prove their conclusions, not silly, amateurish and misguided experiments that prove nothing. And to publish the data they are hiding.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Have gone over this several times. it can be disputed that millette has the same chips because they appear different in some respects and he is vague on some details and lacks some tests. it can be said that paint chips wont match harrit ignition tests until millette proves otherwise. i am not going over this for you again
So there's no actual mistake in Millette's work. Just what I thought.




Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Fig 15 shows it is really difficult to pick some one area free of specific chemicals
Wrong.





Originally Posted by jtl View Post
This attitude looks even worse on you than Sunstealer. You both sound like fanatical "no planes" truthers ranting about holograms. Snap out of it.
Something tells me that ending up saying this was the objective of all this posing.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 21st January 2013 at 07:13 PM. Reason: added blue part
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 21st January 2013, 07:25 PM   #1463
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
No you dont understand. Lets get this straight. The above has nothing to do with the argument about harrit chips and if they are superthermite.

It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite. This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.

All those who understand this say so. If no one does then you can all go back to reading Ron Mossad and I will stop wasting my time.

Really? Does it do windows too?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2013, 08:10 PM   #1464
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
...I will stop wasting my time.
You are already wasting your time whatever your reason for posting.

The main technical reason being that there was no CD at WTC on 9/11.

This whole thermXte debate is a truth movement (i.e. S E Jones) constructed derail to attract attention away from the real issue. There was no CD. (And he was losing out to Gage in the race for attention.)

So pursue the thermXte chemical researches as much as you want

OR making insulting posts

OR whatever else takes your fancy.

Bottom line "No CD at WTC on 9/11"
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 21st January 2013, 08:13 PM   #1465
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl
Jesus, you actually dont understand this? You are so deluded that you say that there is no cherry picking but at the same time you cherry pick Cs and S signals as contamination while you claim the Zn is not contamination. This is cherry picking 101 buddy.

Oystein: It's your son's face behind a thin coating of gypsum.
You'd deny your own son.

No, laddy. Not cherry picking.
You no longer even try to use reason, you are resorting to gibberish, it is not possible to reason with you.

Quote:
nothing to do with the argument about harrit chips and if they are superthermite.

It is about the fact that superthermite exists and it can be a mixture of nanothermite and other stuff like the organic matrix and that this fact means a superthermite can have different output and properties than normal thermite. This means superthermite can exceed 3.9, and most likely very easily with organic component in air, and this also means superthermite can be explosive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtl
Listen Oystein, acknowledge the above or stick to Ron Mossad. None of you should engage in any debate about superthermite if you cant tell the difference between std thermite and superthermite.

Oystein: Strawman.
You still don't understand the argument.
Raspberry jelly. Think about it!
My sonīs face and rasberry jelly. You really look like you are having some sort of a meltdown so I wonīt bother with you no more. I know we all have our good times and our bad times, and maybe you should take a break from JREF forum for a while. Really.
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 08:25 PM   #1466
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I know we all have our good times and our bad times, and maybe you should take a break from JREF forum for a while. Really.


Dog Town 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 21st January 2013, 08:27 PM   #1467
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You no longer even try to use reason, you are resorting to gibberish, it is not possible to reason with you. ...
This should help Millette improve his paper, an order of magnitude, or what.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... My sonīs face and rasberry jelly. You really look like you are having some sort of a meltdown so I wonīt bother with you no more. I know we all have our good times and our bad times, and maybe you should take a break from JREF forum for a while. Really.
Will this help Millette's work too? Projection.

Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC? A very simple question with only two possible answers for you, on correct answer for the rational world. Yes or No. Circle one.

Last edited by beachnut; 21st January 2013 at 08:35 PM.
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 21st January 2013, 08:35 PM   #1468
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
pgimeno: I said it is not "thermite alone" because it follows logically from the comparison with "thermite alone". I didn't mean to imply it was "thermite" but not "alone".

I do not contradict myself. Once established that the energy density proves the compared materials are different...

DSC was a stupid test to perform to start with. The results are just as inconclusive as expected. They merely do show one thing the chips are NOT. And that is thermite alone.
You are babbling. There is no "thermite alone", there is harrit comparing his suspected solgel superthermite to a known solgel superthermite in a paper by Tillotson et al, who are as far as I know not conspiracy theorists. Harrit used DSC because Tillotson used DSC so it is not stupid at all, but it is easy for self proclaimed experts behind false names to say all sorts of things.

I think maybe you should talk to Oystein about some jelly and stuff
jtl 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 21st January 2013, 08:40 PM   #1469
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You are babbling. There is no "thermite alone", there is harrit comparing his suspected solgel superthermite to a known solgel superthermite in a paper by Tillotson et al, who are as far as I know not conspiracy theorists. Harrit used DSC because Tillotson used DSC so it is not stupid at all, but it is easy for self proclaimed experts behind false names to say all sorts of things.

I think maybe you should talk to Oystein about some jelly and stuff
And they did not match. And you still can't tell anyone what DSC is used for. Better google that one.

Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC? A very simple question with only two possible answers for you, on correct answer for the rational world. Yes or No. Circle one.

The thermite claims of Jones and Harrit, destroyed by a real study by Millette, RJ Lee, and USGS. Plus reality based evidence, no blast effects or thermite effects on any steel from the WTC.

Try using the quote button, your replies might/could be faster.

Last edited by beachnut; 21st January 2013 at 08:45 PM.
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 21st January 2013, 11:33 PM   #1470
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
@jtl

Please could you clarify what you think Millette's role is.

Please explain what his objective was from the start.

Thanks
Thanks for ignoring this post jtl, I guess it is not technical enough for you

Judging by your comments like "we need to help Millette debunk harrit" I guess you don't understand that Millette has carried out an independent study to establish if the red/gray chips are thermite. He has not carried out a study to debunk Harrits paper.

You keep insisting that Jref posters should influence his work, which in turn would invalidate his work.

Congrats on being the first debunker who believes Harrit found thermite
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 21st January 2013, 11:47 PM   #1471
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Supposing wonīt do for scientific papers. The way Harrit paper is set up it looks like his chips remain hard soaked while paint softens. The way Millette paper is set up it looks like his chips soften. This sort of stuff along with titanium in millette chips leave the paper wide open for the truther defense of different chips. Millette should prevent this.

Thank you, i hope this inspiration will make it all the way to millette. If you can do more tests you should, including getting the spectra and dsc tests. You seem to know your way with paints so maybe you could make some replication paint for millette, maybe even imitate the redgray chips by painting a batch of ground down metal flakes. Send some to millette and some to harrit. More tests is the way to go, I donīt know why your buddies here are so touchy about it.
Jtl: Hehe Your self-esteem seems to be pretty... spectacular

I just removed some of my "red chips" of Laclede paint imitation from MEK solvent, in which it laid about 20 hours. Linear ("flat") dimensions are about 30 % higher, so the overall increase of volume is about 2x. Those epoxy resin chips are swollen and significantly softened, so they can be easily now broken into pieces. I also subjected one chip to quick (1 hour) high-vacuum drying (normal procedure for polymer drying), and this chip is again hard like before soaking.
So my expectations were confirmed and I can conclude that WTC epoxy paint chips would behave in similar manner. But, my epoxy is probably more densely cross-linked than cross-linked binder in "MEK chip". I can conclude this for sure after another ca 30 hours of swelling...

You wrote: "The way Harrit paper is set up it looks like his chips remain hard soaked while paint softens."
Hehe A little repetition for you: A comparison of the solubility of WTC red/gray chips with some unspecified paint(s) is just a blatant, inexcusable, "crystalline" pure idiocy! Are you capable of understanding this plain fact? I would immediately fire up any student who would try to employ such cretinous comparison in his work

Your advices how to improve Millette's research/results are basically welcome. As well some of your advices how I can "improve" my own "research" on Laclede paint imitation.
But any closer research on such imitation does not really make sense, since:
- Real red Laclede primer paint was applied by electrophoresis and they are no sufficient details on this procedure in the paint specification in NIST report available. Also, composition of Laclede paint is not described in sufficient detail. And all such details can be crucially important for the behavior of paint (e.g. for the density of cross-links)
- For a really good comparison, the paint imitation should be applied on the provably same scales of gray rust as in WTC red/gray chips. Remember that shiny microsphere were created form the gray layers, their composition/structure are/can be important here.
- Truthers (probably including you) would hand-wave any results on such paint imitation anyway

You wrote: "Send some to millette and some to harrit." Are you serious? Do you believe that Harrit would cooperate with us (or with me)? Chris Mohr tried to cooperate with K. Ryan and you probably know the result, or not? The result actually was that Ryan wrote the dirty, silly and disgusting squib "When Mohr is Less", accusing Millette of frauds.

In the next post, I will write you something more about my Laclede imitation and perhaps also more about other stuff....

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 22nd January 2013 at 01:24 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 12:46 AM   #1472
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Jtl:
You probably overlooked that I (well, my colleague in the institute) already investigated the thermal behavior of my Laclede imitation chips using TGA (thermogravimetric analysis) more than year ago.

Here is a corresponding TGA curve under nitrogen:



And here is a TGA curve under air:



Although I already commented these experiments in the past, I have perhaps something new to add now, because of my recent findings as for microscale combustion calorimetry (MCC) results available for epoxy and other polymers in the literature.
Bear in mind that these TGA are very typical for epoxy resin thermal behavior (I know it very well from the comparison with many available papers). And the explanation below is not mine, it is an excerpt from the literature.

Under nitrogen: Apparently, epoxy is massively degraded/pyrolyzed/vaporized around 400 degrees even under inert. Above ca 600 degrees C, basically only incombustible pigments remain. Remember that there is ca 30 wt% of pigments in the imitation.

Under air: The behavior of epoxy is more complex here and has basically two stages. In the first stage, epoxy is again massively degraded/pyrolyzed, but we can see that some of the organic stuff remains at ca 460 to 600 degrees. This stuff has been analyzed many times and it usually described to have polyaromatic/graphitic nature (well, it's just simply black soot). At temperatures above ca 500-550 degrees C, this black/dark stuff is further oxidized and basically disappears above ca 600 degrees C. Only inorganic pigments (nanoclay and iron oxide in my case) remain in the sample.

I did not arrange any DSC measurements of this imitation that time, since although we have several those machines in the institute, none of them is suitable for the measurements up to such high temperatures (700 degrees) under air. We are anyway polymer institute, not inorganic one. Bear in mind, that DSC is seldom used for examination of polymer thermal or thermal/oxidative degradation for reasons I have repeated here several times.

But, I can at least compare/correlate my TGA curves with MCC curves for epoxy resins from the literature. These are again pretty typical MCC curves:



You see? Those curves (TGA and MCC) correlate quite nicely and they basically tell us:
- In MCC apparatus, the epoxy resin is first pyrolyzed/degraded under inert, so it has to be degraded/vaporized similarly to my TGA curve under inert. But vaporized combustible stuffs are then quickly transported into oven with air and they are completely burned/combusted, resulting in MCC curve.

A comparison of the results I've just presented with DSC curves in Bentham paper says: All these curves are fully compatible with the combustion of epoxy resin (or some other polymer binders) in some paint There is a zero evidence coming from Bentham DSC curves that they have anything common with the thermitic reaction.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 22nd January 2013 at 02:29 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 01:16 AM   #1473
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Jtl:
...and finally some short remarks as for MEK chip (without reading all debate above in detail):

1) Please, look at "height" of the aluminium peak in the Fig of unsoaked MEK chip. This peak is almost negligible



It does not really matter if this chip was Tnemec, Laclede or whatever paint or other mundane material. This chip shouldn't be any aluminothermics, I would say

2) The plain common sense tells me:
- It is very probable that unwashed chips were contaminated mostly with calcium sulfate from pulverized drywalls (and Si, Al and other stuffs from the concrete). It is highly questionable, however, that all unwashed chips had to be contaminated to the same extent with these contaminants. Well... it is basically impossible, I would say.
- It is also highly questionable that unwashed chips can be (just accidentally) contaminated with Zn and Cr stuffs.

Therefore, Sunstealer, Oystein and others are indeed right: bearing in mind that XEDS peaks cannot be taken as strictly quantitative measures of elements content for numerous reasons, all we know about XEDS of MEK unsoaked chip is basically compatible with Tnemec red primer.

We cannot say this with certainty. But Tnemec seems to be pretty good candidate (in a very clear and distinct contradiction to any thermite).

(You wrote t

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 22nd January 2013 at 03:14 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 01:21 AM   #1474
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Ivan/Sunstealer/Oystein, do you have your work displayed/summarised anywhere so that people like myself can view your findings/workings without having to dig through pages and pages of forum posts?
__________________
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 22nd January 2013, 02:58 AM   #1475
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Ivan/Sunstealer/Oystein, do you have your work displayed/summarised anywhere so that people like myself can view your findings/workings without having to dig through pages and pages of forum posts?
Yes, some aspects are summarized in great technical detail in my blog:
Oystein's 9/11 debates

Some articles for types like jtl to read (though I don't expect them to understand):

Steven Jones proves primer paint, not thermite:
This summarizes Sunstealer's findings with regard to the MEK-chip. I show imn detail the similarities between that chip and Jones's own data on Tnemec.

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same:
Proves in particular that the XEDS differences between chips a-d and the MEK-chip are so great they can't be explained by surface contamination. So these are different materials. It follows that all the data on the MEK-chip cannot be applied to any other chips, as there is no proof that any other chips like the MEK-chip were tested with any other method.

Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer
Explains what we know about LaClede primer, and shows that Harrit's XEDS data on chips a-d matched the LaClede composition almost perfectly. Also argues that Harrit e.al. make an invalid argument when they compare chips a-d with Tnemec.

Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips:
Documents that Jones and Farrer now admit four things: 1. Corroborate strontium chromate, the LaClede key pigment, for some chips 2. Corroborate kaolin by saying that some chips may have equal amounts of Al and Si 3. Doing DSC under air may have been the wrong way 4. Red-gray chips are from different materials, which immediately created the need to identify which material any specimen - a basic feat Harrit e.al. have not done in their paper

How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic:
The main argument is that Basile's "favorite" chips, according to his own data, cannot contain more than 4.75% thermite, even if you assumed that all the Al was elemental and would react with iron oxide, but it contains more than 80% organics. Since the energy density of almost all organics (burning under air, as happened in Basile's experiment) is at least 4 times that of thermite, it follows that no more 1.3%, but possibly 0%, of the energy release he observed could have come from thermite, but 98.7% to 100% from organic combustion. Therefore that chip, and its reaction, cannot be said to be thermitic (it would be like mixing 5 cl wine with 80 cl rum, selling the mix as a "winic beverage", and claiming it makes you drunk because it contains a very potent wine, when in fact the stuff looks lile rum, tastes like rum and it's the rum that makes you drunk).

Too little thermite to blow up Mark Basile's chip:
Continues the argument about Basile's chip and shows that this little thermite wouldn't even release enough heat to warm the organic matrix to the brink of decomposition or ignition, let alone turn it into gas.
The same argument applies to chips a-d and the MEK-soaked chip: Those, too, have too little Al and too much organic matrix to allow for these chips to be "superthermite" - even if all the Al could react as thermite, it couldn't blow up the matrix by turning it into gas.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 05:00 AM   #1476
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Fig 15 shows it is really difficult to pick some one area free of specific chemicals. And what happened to all the other stuff from fig 14, the Zn, the S, the Ca, Cr, S?
All hiding in some magical unspecified area? How convenient.
You do realise that area mapping in Fig 15 using EDX is only looking for one specific element at a time don't you? So if you set the machine to scan an area for Al then it will give you a map that only shows Al. If you set the machine to only scan for Fe then you will only get a map for Fe.

No, obviously not, you think that the mapping in Fig 15 shows that the Zn and the S, the Ca, Cr, S have all disappeared from the sample. lol.

They haven't disappeared, the machine was simply told not to look for them.

Mate, you are hilarious. You obviously don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about yet you are trying to lecture those that do in full on truther mode. Your mask has slipped.

How can any of us take you seriously when you get such basics wrong, but won't listen of acknowledge any answers? Remember you are not an expert, you said so yourself. Take a step back and go and read all the relevant threads, then learn what a scanning electron microscope is and the role EDX plays before commenting on topics you know nothing about. Some of us have used/are using SEM in our jobs we know what we are talking about.
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 22nd January 2013, 05:14 AM   #1477
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Harrit used DSC because Tillotson used DSC so it is not stupid at all, but it is easy for self proclaimed experts behind false names to say all sorts of things.
Which was a silly thing to do.

Tillitson had a known sample. Therefore using DSC to measure energy output was a reasonable thing to do. Even now Tillitson says that maybe DSC wasn't the best tool to use.

On the other hand Harrit had an unknown sample that primarily consisted of two widely different materials. This alone would mean that any DSC result would be meaningless because there is no way to ascertain exactly what material is producing the exotherm. They even say so themselves in the paper. If you understood DSC and weight then you would know why it's a significant problem and therefore why the DSC traces cannot give you any significant information.

If you look at post DSC photos of the material it is abundantly clear that the material is still red. Redness comes from the iron oxide particles. If this material was thermite it would be a very inefficient one because there would still be most of the fuel left over.

Secondly the gray layer is missing post DSC. Where did that go? Why has a layer with a defined structure vanished? The answer is it produces the microspheres.

Ivan has already shown you DSC traces of epoxy resin which have very similar curve profiles at the all magic 430°C temperature yet you completely ignore his posts. Why are you ignoring good hard data that explains the exotherm in Harrit et al?

Only truthers ignore hard data.
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 22nd January 2013, 05:24 AM   #1478
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Ivan/Sunstealer/Oystein, do you have your work displayed/summarised anywhere so that people like myself can view your findings/workings without having to dig through pages and pages of forum posts?
Best go to Oystein's blog. All my writings are scattered across JREF.
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 22nd January 2013, 06:29 AM   #1479
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You are babbling. There is no "thermite alone", there is harrit comparing his suspected solgel superthermite to a known solgel superthermite in a paper by Tillotson et al, who are as far as I know not conspiracy theorists. Harrit used DSC because Tillotson used DSC so it is not stupid at all, but it is easy for self proclaimed experts behind false names to say all sorts of things.
It is stupid because once established that it is a different material, any further comparison is nonsensical. Tillotson and Gash used DSC over a known material, not in order to characterize it. They knew the kind of UFG aluminium they had used, and the kind of iron oxide. They drew conclusions based on that. They did not use DSC as an identification tool.

DSC is not a proven method for material identification. Performing a DSC test over an unknown material is stupid. All they proved was it was not the same thing Tillotson and Gash tested. Big deal. And you infer from that that it must be another kind of thermite mixed with organics? Why? There is no data supporting that; that's pure belief.

Harrit et al. did however make FTIR and TEM tests to the chips, which are competent methods for positive material identification, as opposed to DSC, which is useless in that field except to discard what it is not, which is what the authors did. However they are holding the FTIR and TEM data. Why don't you ask them to publish that data and to use more competent methods to actually prove their conclusions based on pure beliefs (if not deception, which is a possible reason for holding the data), instead of insisting in reversing the burden of proof?

I know. You must actually have used the old trick of referring to your own cousin to talk about yourself. You show blind faith in the incompetent Gods of Thermite. You fail where truthers fail: epistemology. The data presented in the Harrit et al. paper is not only short of proving their conclusions, but also enough to debunk them. Yet you keep failing on the most basic standards for proof, believing that the paper proves something it actually doesn't.
__________________
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 22nd January 2013, 06:32 AM   #1480
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
(You wrote t
* pgimeno holds his breath...
__________________
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 12:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Đ 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.