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 22nd January 2013, 07:09 AM   #1481
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
* pgimeno holds his breath...


Owing to quite a large amount of info in all these paint (and microspheres) threads, I'm not really sure: have we discussed this old good NIST image of Tnemec primer heated to more than 650 degrees C?



This burned paint layer with some rust scales is basically quite similar to "infamous" Bentham chips:



This is no surprise, since any such red primer paint "after exposure greater than 650 degrees" should be basically similar to unheated paint (visually). But what is probably interesting that we do not see any microspheres created from the scales here. Scales still look like scales (although the image quality is probably not good enough).

From this point of view (which is not conclusive) , Bentham chips heated in DSC device should be different kind of paint chips, since microsphere formation (mostly from gray rust scales) was very apparent there, at similar temperatures

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 22nd January 2013 at 07:19 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, 10:05 AM   #1482
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
jtl: Why did it go from a tiny peak to almost disappearing after washing, just like a lot of other stuff from fig14?

Oystein: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.

Sunstealer: Oh, the Zn is there. Definitely there in Fig 18. You can't see it because you don't know what you are looking at.
So Sunstealer, you say the Zn is still there mislabeled but Oystein says it is not there because Jones focused on a spot without Zn. Which one is it?

Given you are right and there is still some Zn there, why is there less of it after MEK wash? Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?
And you said fig14 was a match for this Tnemec from Jones and also a match to some Millette chips, so why did Millette rule out Tnemec?

Your Tnemec hypothesis has some holes in it so big you could drive a truck through it.

Quote:
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.
Actually I was talking about the fact that all those elements disappeared after washing in figures 16 to 18. You say the Zn is still there but what happened to the other stuff? Do you agree with Oystein that you can cherry pick the Zn as part of the chip while dismissing the rest, or at least the Ca and S, as contamination?

Quote:
Harrit essay on Tnemec: The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below)
displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint
I said before that you guys should show me some references to what truthers have to say about your technical points, but you donīt. I did a quick search for "Harrit paint" and found a paper he wrote about the chips vs Tnemec paint. This essay clearly says the Zn disappeared after washing chip from fig14, and it also points out lack of Magnesium.

Both Harrit and Millette rule out Tnemec.

Quote:
jtl: 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?
You ignored this question Sunstealer, and given the information above it seems obvious why.
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 22nd January 2013, 10:26 AM   #1483
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
So Sunstealer, you say the Zn is still there mislabeled but Oystein says it is not there because Jones focused on a spot without Zn. Which one is it?

Given you are right and there is still some Zn there, why is there less of it after MEK wash? Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?
And you said fig14 was a match for this Tnemec from Jones and also a match to some Millette chips, so why did Millette rule out Tnemec?

Your Tnemec hypothesis has some holes in it so big you could drive a truck through it.



Actually I was talking about the fact that all those elements disappeared after washing in figures 16 to 18. You say the Zn is still there but what happened to the other stuff? Do you agree with Oystein that you can cherry pick the Zn as part of the chip while dismissing the rest, or at least the Ca and S, as contamination?



I said before that you guys should show me some references to what truthers have to say about your technical points, but you donīt. I did a quick search for "Harrit paint" and found a paper he wrote about the chips vs Tnemec paint. This essay clearly says the Zn disappeared after washing chip from fig14, and it also points out lack of Magnesium.

Both Harrit and Millette rule out Tnemec.



You ignored this question Sunstealer, and given the information above it seems obvious why.
Nice post, what's it got to do with 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 22nd January 2013, 10:47 AM   #1484
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Spanx: Originally Posted by Spanx:
@jtl

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

Please explain what his objective was from the start.
Quote:
Spanx: 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.
JREF posters are paying for his work so they have every right to make sure he does all the work, all the tests laid out by Harrit. Trying to influence Millette to exclude some tests you donīt like invalidates his paper. Millettes role is very clear since he is supposed to repeat the work by Harrit, and since you all seem to want the result to be paint his role is specified in plain old English by Harrit:

Quote:
To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic sub-
stance such as paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical dem-
onstration using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
People on this forum are pretending there are no weaknesses with Millette paper but he fails to repeat the work and it is not even 100% for sure that he has the same chips. You say its paint from the wtc but he has not identified any chips as such paint, and he does not offer any empirical demonstration that a sample of paint can produce the same results as Harrit chips in dsc. You canīt see the elephant in the room?

None of you see any room for improvements?

Quote:
plague311: They didn't post their paper in a peer review journal so it has no scientific merit.
You do not make yourselves or Millette look any better by spreading this sort of garbage. Refusing to do the tests and spreading dirty garbage looks very bad.

Quote:
Spanx: Nice post, what's it got to do with thermite ?
Since you donīt understand you have no reason for being here except trolling, so you know why I wonīt bother with you no more. I should have known after your comments about thermite energy release, but now it is official.

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 10:55 AM.
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 22nd January 2013, 10:48 AM   #1485
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
So Sunstealer, you say the Zn is still there mislabeled but Oystein says it is not there because Jones focused on a spot without Zn. Which one is it?

Given you are right and there is still some Zn there, why is there less of it after MEK wash? Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?
And you said fig14 was a match for this Tnemec from Jones and also a match to some Millette chips, so why did Millette rule out Tnemec?

Your Tnemec hypothesis has some holes in it so big you could drive a truck through it.



Actually I was talking about the fact that all those elements disappeared after washing in figures 16 to 18. You say the Zn is still there but what happened to the other stuff? Do you agree with Oystein that you can cherry pick the Zn as part of the chip while dismissing the rest, or at least the Ca and S, as contamination?



I said before that you guys should show me some references to what truthers have to say about your technical points, but you donīt. I did a quick search for "Harrit paint" and found a paper he wrote about the chips vs Tnemec paint. This essay clearly says the Zn disappeared after washing chip from fig14, and it also points out lack of Magnesium.

Both Harrit and Millette rule out Tnemec.



You ignored this question Sunstealer, and given the information above it seems obvious why.
You simply do not understand.

I've told you to go away and research SEM EDX but you refuse to do it. You don't understand why fig 16 and 17 show no zinc even though it's been explained to you half a dozen times. Again if you focus the electron beam using a lower KeV then you are examining an ever smaller area/volume of the sample. We'll try another analogy to see whether you can get it through your skull.

Imagine a bowl of fruit containing apples, oranges pears and bananas. Now with your eyes you can see all the fruit. Now get a pair of binoculars and focus solely on an apple. Hey, where did the bananas go? The bananas have disappeared! See how silly you are being? You are claiming that the bananas have disappeared. They haven't it's still there. So is the Zinc, so is the Iron etc.

How are you determining quantity using EDX spectra? Do you know the difference between quantitative and qualitive?

I've already told you why Millette ruled out Tnemec for his chips that matched samples a-d, but you fail to understand even when a simple analogy is used.

Millette was tasked with looking at spectra that matched samples a-d. He didn't perform any additional experimentation on samples that didn;t match that criteria. Since Tnemec red EDX spectra is outside of this criteria then how on earth could he conclude that his additionally analysed chips could be Tnemec?

Again - if you are asked to pick only apples (EDX of samples a-d) from a fruit bowl then you can safely say they are not bananas (Tnemec Red paint). However, if Millette was to pick bananas out then he would find bananas wouldn't he? It's a simple analogy.

No Millette does not rule out Tnemec completely. Millette rukes out Tnemec ONLY for samples that match the EDX for samples in Harrit et al.

Are you doing this on purpose? Are you willfully getting this stuff wrong even when explained to you? Why are you coming here asking questions when you flatly refuse the answers given? You reek of truther. I'll not bother with you if you keep up these shenanigans.

I don't cherry pick anything - accuse me again and you'll go onto ignore - I've explained in detail why the MEK chip cannot have any significant contamiation and how that chip and some of Millette's chips that are not equivalent to chips a-d are excellent matches for Tnemec red primer paint.

Why would I point you in the direction of truther points? The Harrit et al paper is a crock of *****, totally worthless, not peer-reviewed and published in a pay to publish vanity journal who's editor resigned because of it. Truthers know nothing about the topic and that includes Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basile etc. If they did know how to conduct a materials characterisation exercise then they wouldn't have produced such crap.

How do you publish a rebuttal to a paper that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal of decent reputation.

Why don't you publish why the earth goes round the sun or why the earth isn't flat in say Nature? I'm sure they would jump at such revelations. No one in the wider scientific community knows about the crappy Harrit et al "paper". It doesn't exist as far as academia is concerned.
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, 11:06 AM   #1486
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post



Since you donīt understand you have no reason for being here except trolling, so you know why I wonīt bother with you no more. I should have known after your comments about thermite energy release, but now it is official.
That's where you are wrong, unlike you I don't make out that I know more than everybody else. I can understand that if you can't find the materials to make thermite there is no need to continue searching.

And just for the record I have just as much right to be on this forum as you, you are not special.
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 22nd January 2013, 11:22 AM   #1487
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... People on this forum are pretending there are no weaknesses with Millette paper but he fails to repeat the work and it is not even 100% for sure that he has the same chips. You say its paint from the wtc but he has not identified any chips as such paint, and he does not offer any empirical demonstration that a sample of paint can produce the same results as Harrit chips in dsc. You canīt see the elephant in the room?

....
What is wrong with the study? Did the study ruin your fantasy of thermite? Have you been banned at other forums?

You are pretending to know something about chemistry and thermite. You should team up with a chemical engineer next time.

You don't know what DSC means, so you make up nonsense. Pure nonsense. There was no thermite used on 911. Proved on 911. Millette's paper found no thermite, the same as Harrit's paper.

USGS found not thermite. Lee study found no thermite right next to the WTC,unlike dust collected from where in the Jones farce. Millette found no thermite. The only people who found thermite are those you call crazy "truthers", or nut-case crazy... etc.

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

Fooled by the people you call crazy who believe 911 truth?
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.
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 22nd January 2013, 11:39 AM   #1488
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: Oh, the Zn is there. Definitely there in Fig 18. You can't see it because you don't know what you are looking at.

jtl: So Sunstealer, you say the Zn is still there mislabeled but Oystein says it is not there because Jones focused on a spot without Zn. Which one is it?

Sunstealer: You don't understand why fig 16 and 17 show no zinc even though it's been explained to you half a dozen times.
Oh wow Sunstealer, fig18 to 16 and 17, such a nice handwave! I am sure no one will notice.

Quote:
jtl: Given you are right and there is still some Zn there, why is there less of it after MEK wash? Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?

Sunstealer: No Millette does not rule out Tnemec completely. Millette rukes out Tnemec ONLY for samples that match the EDX for samples in Harrit et al.
Quote:
Millette: small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Strawman! Are you lying on purpose or you just a quack? Did you not understand my question? You gonna publish a paper soon?

Quote:
jtl: 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?
Quote:
Sunstealer: Why would I point you in the direction of truther points? The Harrit et al paper is a crock of *****, totally worthless, not peer-reviewed and published in a pay to publish vanity journal who's editor resigned because of it. Truthers know nothing about the topic and that includes Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basile etc. If they did know how to conduct a materials characterisation exercise then they wouldn't have produced such crap.

How do you publish a rebuttal to a paper that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal of decent reputation.
Oh you can officially stop your act. My post had some very specific questions but you either ignore them or answer with strawman tactics, and when all else fails you resort to spreading garbage about Harrit paper. Maybe you can still impress some of your buddies on this forum but outside of it you are just another troll with pants full of crap. So sad.
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 22nd January 2013, 11:43 AM   #1489
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
My post had some very specific questions .
Try using the quote button, your replies might/could be faster



Fooled by the people you call crazy who believe 911 truth?

You can ask, but you can't answer?
Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC? Yes or No. Circle one.
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 22nd January 2013, 11:48 AM   #1490
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by jtl View Post


You ignored this question Sunstealer, and given the information above it seems obvious why.
Everyone noticed you ignored this. Is this really that tough a question?

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
OK lets try this.

Here is Fig 7 in the Harrit et al paper.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&pictureid=874

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.
A simple yes or no will do.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is 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 22nd January 2013, 11:52 AM   #1491
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
My post had some very specific questions .
They don't make sense.


Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC?

Yes or No.

Circle one.

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 11:54 AM.
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 22nd January 2013, 12:03 PM   #1492
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Kminek: This burned paint layer with some rust scales is basically quite similar to "infamous" Bentham chips:

This is no surprise, since any such red primer paint "after exposure greater than 650 degrees" should be basically similar to unheated paint (visually). But what is probably interesting that we do not see any microspheres created from the scales here. Scales still look like scales (although the image quality is probably not good enough).

From this point of view (which is not conclusive) , Bentham chips heated in DSC device should be different kind of paint chips, since microsphere formation (mostly from gray rust scales) was very apparent there, at similar temperatures
This is a point raised by Harrit in his essay about the chips vs Tnemec, and it seems to rule out Tnemec. The Tnemec before and after burning looks like the Harrit chips before they are ignited, but not after. It looks like chips of Tnemec on those gray flakes would not produce the spheres in dsc test, so the chips must be some other paint.

Quote:
You see? Those curves (TGA and MCC) correlate quite nicely and they basically tell us:
Yes maybe some of those paint curves are similar, but they are a bit conflicting. Again I think we agree that a test is needed with same parameters as Harrit.

Question: The al in the residue spheres kind of has to be pure al? Al oxide and kaolin have very high melting temps while al melts below 700. How can we get al from kaolin of al oxide from laclede or tnemec in those dsc tests?
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 22nd January 2013, 12:07 PM   #1493
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
jtl:

Do you support the notion that Harrit and company should release all their data or do you agree they need to hold it back?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is 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 22nd January 2013, 12:08 PM   #1494
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oh wow Sunstealer, fig18 to 16 and 17, such a nice handwave! I am sure no one will notice.




Strawman! Are you lying on purpose or you just a quack? Did you not understand my question? You gonna publish a paper soon?





Oh you can officially stop your act. My post had some very specific questions but you either ignore them or answer with strawman tactics, and when all else fails you resort to spreading garbage about Harrit paper. Maybe you can still impress some of your buddies on this forum but outside of it you are just another troll with pants full of crap. So sad.
Yep, definitely outed as a truther. You came onto this site saying don't believe in bombs and stuff and now you are openly defending Harrit et al whose entire conclusion is thermite bombs.

You said you weren't an expert, although you now claim to know better than everyone else. You have ignored all of the technical answers, ignored all of the technical posts, purposely misread and twisted posts designed to help you understand, you have no understanding of SEM and I doubt you've ever seen one, but are telling people who do have extensive experience in that field that they are wrong, you finally let the mask slide by defending Harrit and attacking Millette even when it's all been explained to you. There is no point in talking with such a wilfully ignorant and dishonest person.

Onto ignore you go. Bye.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 22nd January 2013 at 12:10 PM.
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, 12:08 PM   #1495
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... Question: The al in the residue spheres kind of has to be pure al? Al oxide and kaolin have very high melting temps while al melts below 700. How can we get al from kaolin of al oxide from laclede or tnemec in those dsc tests?
What is the question? This is nonsense.


Question:
Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC? Yes or No. Circle one
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 22nd January 2013, 12:22 PM   #1496
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-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 22nd January 2013, 12:51 PM   #1497
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Sunstealer: There is no point in talking with such a wilfully ignorant and dishonest person.

Onto ignore you go. Bye.
Oh boo hoo Sunstealer, stop the act, you were caught cheating and lying, and you have crapped you pants. You the self proclaimed expert could not even refer to Millette paper without lying. This is desperation for all to see:

Quote:
Sunstealer: No Millette does not rule out Tnemec completely. Millette rukes out Tnemec ONLY for samples that match the EDX for samples in Harrit et al.
Quote:
Millette: small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Harrit and Millette both rule out Tnemec because of lack of Zn. Sunstealer thinks he knows better than both, but it seems his ego is a lot bigger than his honesty and ability. The rest of you should also notice that Sunstealer admits that some of Millette chips are no match for Harrit chips.
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 22nd January 2013, 12:56 PM   #1498
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oh boo hoo Sunstealer, stop the act, you were caught cheating and lying, and you have crapped you pants. You the self proclaimed expert could not even refer to Millette paper without lying. This is desperation for all to see:



Harrit and Millette both rule out Tnemec because of lack of Zn. Sunstealer thinks he knows better than both, but it seems his ego is a lot bigger than his honesty and ability. The rest of you should also notice that Sunstealer admits that some of Millette chips are no match for Harrit chips.
Who's the troll ?
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 22nd January 2013, 01:03 PM   #1499
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oh boo hoo Sunstealer, stop the act, you were caught cheating and lying, and you have crapped you pants. You the self proclaimed expert could not even refer to Millette paper without lying. This is desperation for all to see: ...
Do you know your posts have a lot of nonsense in them? Do you know where the quote button is?

Since you are completely off topic, try an easy question.


Question:
Do you understand thermite was NOT used on 911 to destroy the WTC? Yes or No. Circle one - good luck

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 01:04 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 22nd January 2013, 01:09 PM   #1500
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
DGM: Do you support the notion that Harrit and company should release all their data or do you agree they need to hold it back?
Yes, they should release all data, but this is hardly a big issue until the previous data have been dealt with. I donīt know how much data is left but maybe there is enough for another Harrit paper? This should dome out after Millette publishes his paper.

Someone said something about another researcher putting out a paper?

Quote:
Spanx: Who's the troll ?
You Spanx and beachnut. You keep repeating the same non sense again and again even though you have been told I wonīt bother, so maybe you will understand this time? I wonīt bother again so Good Bye.

Last edited by jtl; 22nd January 2013 at 01:18 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 22nd January 2013, 01:19 PM   #1501
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
jtl, the FAIL-density in your post #1482 is astounding! Almost every single claim is FALSE, almost every singel question based on a FALSE premise.

Only the very first question is a good one:
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
So Sunstealer, you say the Zn is still there mislabeled but Oystein says it is not there because Jones focused on a spot without Zn. Which one is it?
When I said or implied that Fig 18 does not show Zn, I didn't consider the possibility that a peak could be mislabeled due to edge energies of two elements being almost the same. Sunstealer is correct in pointing out that Na (K-alpha) at 1.04 keV and Zn (L-alpha) at 1.01 can be easily mixed up, and that it is possible the peak labeled "Na" is actually Zn. I disagree with Sunstealer when he asserts this as a certainty. In the same graph, P and Cl pop up even though they are not seen in Fig 14, and their edge energies (2.01 keV and 2.62 keV, respectively) have no plausible nearby neighbors that could cause a similar mix-up. So seeing Na pop up didn't seem outlandish.

But the argument remains: Whether or not "Na" should be "Zn" instead: The low or non-existing level of Zn is simply due to Jones focusing on an "apple" (a region rich in Fe in that case; no one claims that there is a compound in that chip that has both Fe and Zn. "Fe"-compound is the apple, "Zn"-compound (chromate, by the way) would be a banana, and you don't see much of the banana because you focus on the apple)

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Given you are right and there is still some Zn there, why is there less of it after MEK wash?
The premise of this question is UNSUPPORTED. We don't know if there is less, more, or the same proportion of Zn. They only show some selected fruit, not the whole basket, after the MEK soak.

That's why Sunstealer was smart not to answer it.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?
The premise of this question is UNSUPPORTED. You don't know if there is less, more, or the same proportion of Zn.

Can you demonstrate how you used the available data to arrive at this conclusion?

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
And you said fig14 was a match for this Tnemec from Jones and also a match to some Millette chips, so why did Millette rule out Tnemec?
The premise of this question is FALSE.
Millette did NOT rule out Tnemec for chips whose XEDS spectra resemble that of Tnemec or the MEK chip.
He only ruled out Tnemec for the chips that have XEDS spectra similar to chips a-d. This was entirely expected, in fact we knew all along that those chips are not Tnemec. Instead, we strongly suspect they are LaClede.
Millette wasn't aware of LaClede paint at the time he wrote the preliminary report, which was in February.
He is now, and actively pursuing sampled of actual LaClede paint (without success, so far).

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Your Tnemec hypothesis has some holes in it so big you could drive a truck through it.
You say this because you get all your facts wrong AND don't understand XEDS.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Actually I was talking about the fact that all those elements disappeared after washing in figures 16 to 18.
This FALSE, or at least UNSUPPORTED. You have no evidence that the elements actually disappeared. Insufficient data.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You say the Zn is still there but what happened to the other stuff?
Could still be there.

Again, there is no Al in Fig 16 - this doesn't mean the Al is gone!

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Do you agree with Oystein that you can cherry pick the Zn as part of the chip while dismissing the rest, or at least the Ca and S, as contamination?
This disagreement between me and Sunstealer is pretty insignificant. And no, it is not cherry-picking, it comes from a straight interpretation of ALL the available data. There is some room for variety, in my opinion, with just the Ca and S peaks being higher than expected (IMO), but the "Tnemec" fingerprint is too peculiar to be missed.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I said before that you guys should show me some references to what truthers have to say about your technical points, but you donīt.
Why should we? Truthers misrepresent, quote-mine and otherwise rape our technical points, because they are all as clueless or dishonest as you are. It would actually be your job to find good arguments, as you are the truther here.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
I did a quick search for "Harrit paint" and found a paper he wrote about the chips vs Tnemec paint. This essay clearly says the Zn disappeared after washing chip from fig14, and it also points out lack of Magnesium.
I believe you are talking about this letter?
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf
Harrit writes:
"In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!).
Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint (Table 1).
"
Harrit's claims are FALSE and MISLEADING.
First of all, there IS a peak for magnesium in Fig 6, which is Fig. 14 of the Bentham paper - they just chose to not label it. It's the peak between Zn and Al.
Secondly, Harrit presents no data that supports the assertion that Zn, Cr and Mg were gone. Same "fruit basket" issue. (Fig 17 has a bit Mg, by the way)
Thirdly, the "tiny blips" for Zn and Cr are consistent with 1.8% and 0.5% by weight of these elements, while the blip for Al is consistent with 0.6%. So the total amount of Al would be as insignificant as that of Cr.
Fouthly, the speculation that Zn and Cr derived from contamination with paint is laughable for several (well, at least two) reasons, and not supported by any evidence at all.

The Harrit letter suffers from another stupid mistake, by which Harrit overestimated the content in Tnemec of the various minerals (metals) by a factor of 3-4.

It does contain valuable data though: It's Figure 5b shows elements in chip a that they did not document in the Bentham paper, most interestingly Strontium and Chromium, thus corroborating nicely our hypothesis that chips a-d are LaClede paint, which contains 1% strontium chromate.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Both Harrit and Millette rule out Tnemec.
This is FALSE.
Millette did not rule out Tnemec for all chips, he just ruled out Tnemec for chips a-d, which we already knew to not be Tnemec.
Harrit also can only rule out Tnemec for chips a-d. He says he rules out Tnemec for the MEK chip, but he misrepresents the data. His claimn is thus unsupported and not compelling.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You ignored this question Sunstealer, and given the information above it seems obvious why.
The question why he does not publish properly in a scientific journal is a distraction, and hand-wave.
Harrit's letter wasn't thus published.
And the Bentham paper, likewise, cannot be considered a proper scientific journal.
But anyway, an argument is right or wrong regardless of who makes it and where.
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, 01:25 PM   #1502
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post



You Spanx and beachnut. You keep repeating the same non sense again and again even though you have been told I wonīt bother, so maybe you will understand this time? I wonīt bother again so Good Bye.
LMFAO.

Say's the man with the DSC Al making machine

Get a life troll
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 22nd January 2013, 01:26 PM   #1503
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 3,989
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Oh you can officially stop your act. My post had some very specific questions but you either ignore them or answer with strawman tactics, and when all else fails you resort to spreading garbage about Harrit paper. Maybe you can still impress some of your buddies on this forum but outside of it you are just another troll with pants full of crap. So sad.
Sunstealer is the one with the "act"? Is that so anti-truther?

What he said is solid, and it's a fact that you cannot dispute. Hence why, instead of replying to the subject of his statement, you attacked the poster.

The fact is the Harrit et al paper is completely worthless in the scientific field. Millette's job wasn't to "debunk" the Harrit paper, and I feel that is your fundamental misunderstanding. Mr. Mohr requested that Dr. Millette identify the red\gray chips that were in the WTC dust, not debunk Harrit. It just so happens with one goes the other. The point you continuously seem to ignore is that the Harrit paper is SELF-DEBUNKING.

Instead of getting it reviewed in an actual scientific journal they went to a pay-to-publish journal. Those are facts, not disputable, and as Sunstealer said, the editor left due to the ruckus caused by that paper being published. Again, that is a fact, it is not able to be disputed. Your willful ignorance aside.
__________________
"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 22nd January 2013, 01:28 PM   #1504
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
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. ...
Are you upset Ron Mossad knows 911 truth is crazy/wrong on face value?

You think super-thermite has more energy than thermite? Is that the super-nano-911-truth-special-chemistry version? Did you take chemistry in college? Do you know what the quote button is for?

Do you understand thermite was not used to destroy the WTC? Is this too simple?

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd January 2013 at 01:32 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 22nd January 2013, 01:33 PM   #1505
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Yes, they should release all data, but this is hardly a big issue until the previous data have been dealt with. I donīt know how much data is left but maybe there is enough for another Harrit paper? This should dome out after Millette publishes his paper.
As a matter of fact, their FTIR and TEM data, and very likely the XRD data, predates Millette's work by more than 2 years.

They should have published in 2009, or 2010 at the latest.

The fact that they used 3 competent methods to definitely ID the chemical compounds, and didn't publish in three years, speaks very strongly for the hypothesis that all competent methods could not find the slightes trace of thermite!

In fact, the authors don't even claim these methods found more evidence for thermite. They have already admitted that they found NO further proof for thermite!

A pretty damning situation.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Someone said something about another researcher putting out a paper?
Are you thinking of Mark Basile? He has previously done some work on red-gray chips and presented data rather informally in 2010. Here are two blog posts I wrote on his work:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...-red-gray.html
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...w-up-mark.html

The main point is that Basile quantified the elements in the red layer and found 80% and more organic matrix, but so little Al and Fe that even under the most ideal circumstances these could combine to no more than 4.75% thermite. Given these proportions, and the fact that practically all organic polymers have an energy density four times or more that of thermite, it follows that 99% or more of the energy released when burning his chip must come from (slow!) organic combustion under air.

Basile is currently trying to collect $5000 to commission an indendent lab to do another study, but donations are coming in slowly and it might take a while till it gets going:
http://markbasile.org/donation/index.htm
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, 01:34 PM   #1506
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Someone said something about another researcher putting out a paper ?
Once he has raised $5000

Or are you talking about another person

Sorry Oystein, looks like we crossed in the post

The amazing thing is, with the millions of truthers around, not many of them want to donate to Mark Basile.

Last edited by Spanx; 22nd January 2013 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Last line
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 22nd January 2013, 01:51 PM   #1507
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
JREF posters are paying for his work so they have every right to make sure he does all the work, all the tests laid out by Harrit. Trying to influence Millette to exclude some tests you donīt like invalidates his paper.
You imply a FALSE premise: No one tried to influence Millette exclude any tests.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Millettes role is very clear since he is supposed to repeat the work by Harrit,
This is FALSE.
Millette's role was to prove conclusively whether or not there is thermite in Harrit's chips a-d, or any other chips.
He was certainly NOT "supposed to repeat the work by Harrit", as the work by Harrit is terminally flawed, inconclusive, amateurish and clueless. He was specifically asked to do competent, conclusive tests, which Harrit e.al. failed to do.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and since you all seem to want the result to be paint his role is specified in plain old English by Harrit:
Harrit is a fool and/or dishonest.

The DSC test is incompetent to start with.
It cannot do what Harrit claims it can do, namely tell if a sample contains thermite or not.
Their DSC cannot possibly repeated, as they gave no indication whatsoever which of the several kinds of red-gray, magnetic chips they tested.
Their DSC test results ALONE prove there was no thermite reaction.
They even did the DSC test the wrong and most incompetent way: Under air instead of inert gas.

Why do you believe incompetent, dishonest fools? That is blind faith!
Harrit throws you a red herring, and you swallow it whole, with head, fins, bones, line and sinker.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
People on this forum are pretending there are no weaknesses with Millette paper but he fails to repeat the work
FALSE.
His not repeating incompetent, inconclusive tests that were done the wrong way, cannot possibly be repeated because ot was done on unidentified and unidentifiable chips, is actually a STRENGTH of Millette's work so far. Instead, he did competent and conclusive tests like FTIR and TEM-SAED.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and it is not even 100% for sure that he has the same chips.
FALSE.
He is, and we are, sure that he got the right chips: The same material as Harrit's chips a-d.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You say its paint from the wtc but he has not identified any chips as such paint,
FALSE.
Millette has identified those chips as paint, and the dust as dust from the WTC. Thus, he identified those chips as paint from the WTC.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
and he does not offer any empirical demonstration that a sample of paint can produce the same results as Harrit chips in dsc.
We don't know if chips like chips a-d were at all tested in the DSC. So this point is moot.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
None of you see any room for improvements?
I do see room for improvement, and communicate it to Millette via Chris Mohr when a good idea arises.

You have not even come close to a good idea yet. You fail at all the basics.
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, 02:00 PM   #1508
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
As a matter of fact, their FTIR and TEM data, and very likely the XRD data, predates Millette's work by more than 2 years.

They should have published in 2009, or 2010 at the latest.

The fact that they used 3 competent methods to definitely ID the chemical compounds, and didn't publish in three years, speaks very strongly for the hypothesis that all competent methods could not find the slightes trace of thermite!

In fact, the authors don't even claim these methods found more evidence for thermite. They have already admitted that they found NO further proof for thermite!

A pretty damning situation.


Are you thinking of Mark Basile? He has previously done some work on red-gray chips and presented data rather informally in 2010. Here are two blog posts I wrote on his work:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...-red-gray.html
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2...w-up-mark.html

The main point is that Basile quantified the elements in the red layer and found 80% and more organic matrix, but so little Al and Fe that even under the most ideal circumstances these could combine to no more than 4.75% thermite. Given these proportions, and the fact that practically all organic polymers have an energy density four times or more that of thermite, it follows that 99% or more of the energy released when burning his chip must come from (slow!) organic combustion under air.

Basile is currently trying to collect $5000 to commission an indendent lab to do another study, but donations are coming in slowly and it might take a while till it gets going:
http://markbasile.org/donation/index.htm
You have far more patience that I.

One of the main criticisms at the time of publishing was that Harrit et al should have performed experiments that would not lead to ambiguous data, but rather conclusive evidence of what the material they has separated actually was.

Their own paper states FTIR was performed yet there is no data in the paper.
Quote:
The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which
characterize this energetic material. We have performed
these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.
In fact they have never reported the results anywhere almost 4 years later.

It's interesting to note that the length of the paper was a real problem and that they had to chose what to keep and what to drop. They chose to keep large portions of text from irrelevant tests such as MEK soaking, DSC, electrical resistivity test and ignition with a propane torch, whilst dropping a definitive test in FTIR.

At the time we complained that nothing like XRD was performed to confirm their findings. Later we learned that TEM had been used to identify the iron oxide particles as rhombohedral Fe2O3, but that the same technique applied to the hexagonal platelet particles was inconclusive. Once again this data has never been presented.

It's interesting to note that truthers attack Millette for not carrying out a worthless DSC test, but refrain from asking Harrit/Jones etc from publishing data they already have and have promised to release.

Why are they withholding data? Do they have something to hide?
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, 02:05 PM   #1509
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Once he has raised $5000

Or are you talking about another person

Sorry Oystein, looks like we crossed in the post

The amazing thing is, with the millions of truthers around, not many of them want to donate to Mark Basile.
It's amazing that 1500+ architects and engineers, tens of thousands of truthers can't find 5000 bucks. Even a dollar each would be more than enough.

If the samples were sent to an independent lab for materials characterisation then I suspect that debunkers would chip (pun intended) in too.
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, 02:05 PM   #1510
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Quote:
Millette: small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Harrit and Millette both rule out Tnemec because of lack of Zn. Sunstealer thinks he knows better than both, but it seems his ego is a lot bigger than his honesty and ability. The rest of you should also notice that Sunstealer admits that some of Millette chips are no match for Harrit chips.
Millette repeats (perhaps copies) the mistake Harrit made about the composition of Tnemec:
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

In that letter, Figure 3, Harrit quotes the Tnemec formula found in the NIST report. It states: "Zinc yellow 20.3%"
These 20% do NOT actually refer to the paint but to the total pigment! All pigments add up to 100%, all vehicle ingredients likewise add up to 100%.
But you mix vehicle and pigments in a certain proportion. In the case of LaClede paint that proportion is 71.5% : 28.5% organics (non-volatile!) : pigment. Assuming that Tnemec would have a similar proportion, the actual Zinc Yellow (ZnCrO4) content of the dry paint would be 20.3% * 28.5% = 5.8%. Of this, Zn makes up 36% by weight, Cr 29% and O the balance. In the paint, Zn would be thus expected to be 2.1% and Cr 1.7% of the mass.

2.1% Zn is actually nicely compatible with the Zn-signal in Fig. 14!
Cr is a bit too low, but quantification of XEDS spectra is an imprecise thing anyway, so we are at least in the right ball park.
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, 02:13 PM   #1511
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Not sure if anyone is interested or not but if you want To listen to something why we wait for jtl to make up some BS out of our posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMbNc...eature=youtube

As he is so ******* special

I do realise this post will end up in AAH with most of jtl's posts

Last edited by Spanx; 22nd January 2013 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Last line
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 22nd January 2013, 02:17 PM   #1512
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
jtl: Why did fig14 not have the same amount of Zn as the known sample(from Jones) of Tnemec you yourself used for comparison?

Oystein: jtl, the FAIL-density in your post #1482 is astounding!

The premise of this question is UNSUPPORTED. You don't know if there is less, more, or the same proportion of Zn.

Can you demonstrate how you used the available data to arrive at this conclusion?

Millette did not rule out Tnemec for all chips, he just ruled out Tnemec for chips a-d
Oh stop the strawman tactics and the act Oystein, it fails for Sunstealer and it fails for you.

You both try to drown my points and my questions with high volumes of garbage. You both refuse to even accept the obvious, a fact that is admitted in plain language by your man Millette:

The data are self evident, the Zn peak is Harrit fig14 and the Millette chips are not as big as the Zn peak in the Tnemec graph. Millette found some chips with some Zn but none of them had enough Zn to be Tnemec. Millette acknowledges this in plain words:

Quote:
Millette: small EDS peaks of zinc and chromium were detected in some samples but the amount detected was inconsistent with the 20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula.
Donīt have another meltdown Oystein, Millette did not find any chips with enough Zn to be Tnemec. Millette and Harrit rule out Tnemec for all their chips.

Maybe you think you can dismiss or forget about this by drowning the thread with more evasive comments like Sunstealer, but realize that this sort of behavior is DENIAL.

Stick your head in the sand if you like for all I care.

Quote:
In fact, the authors don't even claim these methods found more evidence for thermite. They have already admitted that they found NO further proof for thermite!
You like to make big statements but sometimes there is not a lot behind them. If you have statements from the authors about this extra data gives us some links to see for ourselves. Why should they release new stuff without a challenge to their previous proofs?

It seems a little fishy that you all bash Harrit for not releasing more data after the published paper, but you also all accept Millette preliminary report as absolute proof even though it lacks a lot of data and has not even been published. The funny thing is that some of you also think Millette has absolute proof that some of his chips are Tnemec even though Millette rules it out.
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 22nd January 2013, 02:18 PM   #1513
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
It's amazing that 1500+ architects and engineers, tens of thousands of truthers can't find 5000 bucks. Even a dollar each would be more than enough.

If the samples were sent to an independent lab for materials characterisation then I suspect that debunkers would chip (pun intended) in too.
I understand that JM Talboo has approached AE911Truth to ask for support, but was denied. I think he said the new Basile study proposal was recently featured and linked to on the ae911truth.org website, but can't find it right now, scanning their headlines.

A thread he opened at 911Blogger went largely unnoticed.

Truthers don't actually have any interest in a new study: They understand well enough that it will debunk them - again.

So far I am holding back my endorsement and donation for that Basile study; the proposal's objective is rather vague, and I am not yet sure they will later engage in an open, honest debate.

I think, personally, after having talked to him on the phone, that Basile is an honest man, and somewhat open towards admitting that the stuff really isn't thermite after all. But he has stopped communication with me, and I don't know why. So I hesitate.
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, 02:20 PM   #1514
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
If the samples were sent to an independent lab for materials characterisation then I suspect that debunkers would chip (pun intended) in too.
It's strange they only mention where the tests are not being carried out.
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 22nd January 2013, 02:49 PM   #1515
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
Oystein: Millette repeats (perhaps copies) the mistake Harrit made about the composition of Tnemec:
http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf
You guys are so lame. First you deny that Millette ruled out Tnemec and now it comes down to Millette must have made a mistake, which you blame on Harrit.

You also ignore that you have referred directly to an actual graph of known Tnemec paint and it is obvious from that graph that is has much more Zn in it than both the Millette chips and Harrit fig14, so you this latest explanation of failed math is a dead end.

Millette does not refer to Harrit about the Tnemec paint, he went to the producer, so maybe the producer made mistakes?

Quote:
Millette on Tnemec:
16. Sramek, T.F.: Correspondence between Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. and R. M. Monti, Port of New York Authority, giving clarification and attaching a product sheet for Tnemec 69 and 99 column paints, Nov 22, 1967. As cited in:Banovic, S.W. and Foecke, T., Assessment of Structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part IV: Experimental Techniques to Assess Possible Exposure to High –Temperature Excursions. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 6(5):103-120. Oct 2006.
17. www.tnemec.com [ last accessed on Feb. 26, 2012].
Besides lack of Zn, millette adds:
Quote:
the primer is an alkyd-based resin with zinc yellow (zinc
chromate) and diatomaceous silica along with some other proprietary (Tnemec ) pigments. No diatoms were found during the analysis of the red/gray chips.
You think Millette also made a mistake here? Face the facts.
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 22nd January 2013, 02:54 PM   #1516
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,789
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You guys are so lame. ...
Face the facts.
Evidence?
You can't answer if you know thermite was not used to destroy the WTC towers on 911. What was your term for truthers?
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
... you also all accept Millette preliminary report as absolute proof even though it lacks a lot of data and has not even been published. ...
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

Millette found no thermite. Harrit found no thermite. Not sure why you need to improve Millette's paper, it confirms what rational people knew about Harrit's scam paper; he thinks tons of thermite were used on 911.

Do you know thermite was not used on 911?
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 22nd January 2013, 03:04 PM   #1517
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,678
jtl, I have just 3 questions I would like you to answer.

Quote:
In that letter, Figure 3, Harrit quotes the Tnemec formula found in the NIST report. It states: "Zinc yellow 20.3%"
These 20% do NOT actually refer to the paint but to the total pigment! All pigments add up to 100%, all vehicle ingredients likewise add up to 100%.
But you mix vehicle and pigments in a certain proportion. In the case of LaClede paint that proportion is 71.5% : 28.5% organics (non-volatile!) : pigment. Assuming that Tnemec would have a similar proportion, the actual Zinc Yellow (ZnCrO4) content of the dry paint would be 20.3% * 28.5% = 5.8%. Of this, Zn makes up 36% by weight, Cr 29% and O the balance. In the paint, Zn would be thus expected to be 2.1% and Cr 1.7% of the mass.

2.1% Zn is actually nicely compatible with the Zn-signal in Fig. 14!
Cr is a bit too low, but quantification of XEDS spectra is an imprecise thing anyway, so we are at least in the right ball park.
1. Is Oystein right, or is Oystein wrong? Please explain your answer.


Quote:
As a matter of fact, their FTIR and TEM data, and very likely the XRD data, predates Millette's work by more than 2 years.

They should have published in 2009, or 2010 at the latest.

The fact that they used 3 competent methods to definitely ID the chemical compounds, and didn't publish in three years, speaks very strongly for the hypothesis that all competent methods could not find the slightes trace of thermite!

In fact, the authors don't even claim these methods found more evidence for thermite. They have already admitted that they found NO further proof for thermite!

A pretty damning situation.
2.Is Oystein right, or is Oystein wrong? Please explain your answer.



The EDX spectra (from Bentham); a, b, c and d, show that the red layer is the same material. i.e. a=b=c=d.

3.Are we right, or are we wrong? Please explain your answer.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 22nd January 2013 at 03:05 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 03:06 PM   #1518
jtl
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 180
Quote:
jtl: Someone said something about another researcher putting out a paper?

Oystein: Are you thinking of Mark Basile? He has previously done some work on red-gray chips and presented data rather informally in 2010. Here are two blog posts I wrote on his work:
Must be, unless there are also other new papers on the way?

Quote:
Oystein: I think, personally, after having talked to him on the phone, that Basile is an honest man, and somewhat open towards admitting that the stuff really isn't thermite after all. But he has stopped communication with me, and I don't know why. So I hesitate.
I found a recent interview with Basile on a radio show that I will listen to, and check how it compares to your story. With your meltdowns in mind and some of your posts here I do wonder a bit if he did not get fed up with you, and that you are bending the truth a bit?
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 22nd January 2013, 03:13 PM   #1519
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why should they release new stuff without a challenge to their previous proofs?
They have proven nothing. All of their proofs have been shown invalid or inconclusive. They have a preconceived idea of what the stuff is (that's why they did the DSC test - because they read it in the Tillotson paper). None of the proofs they give is competent enough to pass a minimum standard for confidence. All the really conclusive data is held or never done. Like the FTIR and TEM data they are holding. Like the PXRD that Tillotson did to prove that a thermite reaction occurred and no other.

They need to fix their flawed, incompetent analysis and publish results that do prove their conclusions, instead of starting with the conclusions and show only the results that could be interpreted ambiguously enough as to maybe support their claims, and hide the rest. To their shame, they even failed at that: some of their results disprove their claims.

And you should be calling them on it.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2013, 03:15 PM   #1520
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,819
Originally Posted by jtl View Post
...You both refuse to even accept the obvious, a fact that is admitted in plain language by your man Millette:

The data are self evident, the Zn peak is Harrit fig14 and the Millette chips are not as big as the Zn peak in the Tnemec graph. Millette found some chips with some Zn but none of them had enough Zn to be Tnemec. Millette acknowledges this in plain words:


Donīt have another meltdown Oystein, Millette did not find any chips with enough Zn to be Tnemec. Millette and Harrit rule out Tnemec for all their chips.
Your quote from Millette's prelim report does not support the bolded sentence. Millette speaks of an expected "20% level of zinc chromate in the primer formula", not of a comparison with any actual Tnemec. As I have shown in one of my previous posts, that expectation, and the number 20.3%, is erroneous - there is actually only about 6% zinc yellow in Tnemec, and that is very well compatible with the Zn peak in Fig 14.

As for comparison of Fig 14 with Jones's spectrum of Tnemec, you can't just eyeball peak heights and declare one represents a higher Zn content than the other. That's not how you interprete XEDS data.

But you wouldn't know that - you have shown again and again that you don't understand XEDS.
No worries. I was where you are now perhaps 1.5 or 2 years ago. But I took my time, I read, I asked experts questions, I accepted their answers; I installed expert software and played around with it. Over the course of months, I have slowly learned more and more till I came to the point where I could discuss XEDS graphs without making an utter fool of myself, as you are doing now.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Maybe you think you can dismiss or forget about this by drowning the thread with more evasive comments like Sunstealer, but realize that this sort of behavior is DENIAL.
We are drowning you in facts and what feels like a truck running over you is logic.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Stick your head in the sand if you like for all I care.
You know a truther has surrendered when he doesn't even pretend to argue the facts

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
You like to make big statements but sometimes there is not a lot behind them. If you have statements from the authors about this extra data gives us some links to see for ourselves.
ProfJones wrote in September:
"I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments."

Without evidence for elemental Al, you haven't proven thermite.
TEM and XRD can provide evidence for elemental Al.
They just didn't.
As Farrer and Jones publicly admitted.

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
Why should they release new stuff without a challenge to their previous proofs?
In the same thread, I present a challenge to Jones:
"In short, ProfJones, can you admit that your conclusions in the 2009 paper are facing serious challenges of fact and logic in 2012?"
(Along with a few very specific challenging questions).

Jones replied here by ignoring all questions completely, and turning a tuo quoque!

I was nice enough to answer his questions, and then repeated some of my own - here.

Does Jones address and answer the challenges in his next, and final, response? Nooooo!
He entirely dodges all questions, all challenges!
Instead, argues ad homininem, incessantly!
Some examples:
"this anonymous Oystein fellow"
"Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11?"
Then he throws red herrings, moves goal posts, tries to derail, makes bogus arguments, in short: Kicks and screams and runs away from the challenge without answering a single question appropriately and honestly.

Note that Kevin Ryan and Frank Legge also chimed in (Ryan makes ad hominem attacks at Millette - he is a vile and evil man, and Legge makes a bogus argument), so both are aware of the challenges - and fail to address them appropriately.


Originally Posted by jtl View Post
It seems a little fishy that you all bash Harrit for not releasing more data after the published paper, but you also all accept Millette preliminary report as absolute proof even though it lacks a lot of data and has not even been published.
jtl? Is everything fine in your head? This is so utterly stupid, I can't believe you actually wrote this without being damaged somehow!

Millette shows many times more, and better, data, than Harrit e.al.
And his prelim report IS published - for how could you quote from it if it weren't??

Originally Posted by jtl View Post
The funny thing is that some of you also think Millette has absolute proof that some of his chips are Tnemec even though Millette rules it out.
This, again, is FALSE. You misrepresent his statement and his data.
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
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 11:56 AM.
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.