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 debate , jay howard , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , Oystein , paint chips

Reply
Old 28th May 2015, 03:24 PM   #161
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So, you're accusing them of fraud. Ok. You can't really substantiate that, but if you personally don't want to accept their conclusions about the MEK chip, that is your prerogative. Again, you've accepted the very-low probability hypothesis that the sorting process (magnetic + red/gray bilayer) accidentally selected for inert substances which just happen to confirm the predictions of the thermitic theory.
I mearly made a statement that is true. The paper does not show a detailed SEM image of the MEK chip and therefore we can't see any supposed contamination nor see any of the constituents as we can in chips a-d. I've never accused Harrit et al with fraud but they are incompetent because they haven't maintained the methodology when performing EDX analysis; namely cleaving the chip.

Their sorting process is extremely basic and doesn't produce reproducible results. Their own paper shows this:

For example Fig 31 shows a chip that does not have the same characteristics as chips a-d or the MEK chip. Fig 33 shows the EDX of the gray layer in of the chip in Fig 32 but this gray layer is comprised of a completely different material to the gray layer in chips a-d)

Therefore any conclusions to do with the generic term "gray layer" in the paper is moot.

Quote:
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers.
Page 28.

And there you have in their own words the very fact that their selection process doesn't discriminate between chips with different constituents in the red layer.

So on the one hand you, Harrit, Farrer, Basile etc claim that this material is the product of a high tech lab and specifically engineered yet the product itself is contaminated. NWO doesn't seem to know about quality control.

On the other hand coating manufacturers need to maintain quality and consistency of product. The answer to the above quote is that they have isolated different materials due to the inadequacy of method. All of those elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper are commonly found in paint.



Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
That's irrational, pure and simple. You are not being rational. There isn't anything I can do to change that. Even if you throw the MEK chip out because you believe someone threw in or misidentified another substance which is both magnetic and r/g bilayer, which is composed of 2 nanoscale structures, which are chemically indistinguishable from other samples, even if you want to throw it out, you still have to explain this:

http://i1065.photobucket.com/albums/...pszfhgbqs5.png

Why are there remnants in the WTC dust of a substance that can create molten iron when ignited? Why is there a substance that IGNITES at all in the WTC dust?
It isn't irrational at all.

What is irrational is believing that nanoscale particles cannot be explained when there is unquestionable evidence that such structures are not only found in nature, in the case of kaolin which is what the hexagonal particles are, or manufactured in industrial quantities since the 1920s in the case of the Fe2O3 100nm pigment particles.

Particle size control along with shape and the synthesis of such is a pre-requisite for producing the type and colour of coatings. Oystein has again shown this above with links to the process.

Laclade red primer paint is made up of an epoxy binder material within which is mixed red iron oxide pigment and kaolin (clay). Epoxy will burn at approximately 430C. Ivan Kminek showed that this is the case and referenced the literature.

The phenomenon of igniting wire wool by flame produces spherical particles. This is due to the relative large surface area of the wire wool. The same is true of the gray layer in the chips.

I notice that you have not taken up the request to answer the 5 simple questions here http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=643

That post asks questions about pre and post ignition observations that will answer your query.


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
And you don't seem to know how paint thinner works.
Solvents won't always work in the way intended especially on old hardened paint based on different binders.

Dr Millette used a number of solvents:

Quote:
Samples of red/gray chips were placed in several solvents overnight and then subjected to ultrasonic agitation to determine if the solvents could dissolve the epoxy binder and liberate the internal particles. The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins. The commercial paint strippers, Klean-Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper and Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Remover, contain methylene chloride, methanol and mineral spirits.
but none of these had the desired effect:

Quote:
The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).
Which is why he used low temperature ashing.



Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
It's amazing how often an accusation of (in this case) "hand waving" is levied immediately proceeding its commission. No one is denying that Tnemec red as well as several other primers were used in the buildings.
And yet Harrit et al never found any. They never isolated a single sample according to them. The fact of the matter is they did but they didn't realise they had because they were clouded by the thought that thermite was present.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
The significant facts you fail to see as significant are:

1. The pre-soak, i.e., contaminated XEDS of the red/gray chip in question demonstrated identical peaks for Tnemec red. They identified it with a magnet and a visual inspection and proceeded to do XEDS analysis on it.
You can't positively identify anything with a magnet other than to say it is magnetic. A visual inspection confirming that the chip contains a metallic looking layer (gray layer) and a red layer does not identify the material. Just as they "identified" the chip in Fig 31 and 32 which had a different gray layer.

What they failed to do with the MEK chip was to compare that EDX spectrum with Tnemec red because they didn't have a sample of the primer paint at the time. Only later did they acquire a sample. I believe that this was from a monument sometime later and it's this sample that is shown in Jones' talk.

Jones only compares the Tnemec red EDX with the red layers of chips a-d and not the MEK chip.


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
2. After soaking, Zn, Mg and Cr are not seen.
MEK soaking for 55 hours did not separate the particles as expected. Not surprising as I've alluded above. It simply swelled the red layer.

BSE and EDX mapping of the MEK chip post soaking only shows maps for Fe, Al, O, Si and C - Fig 15.

At no time are Zn, Mg or Cr looked for in the analysis. The EDX in Figs 16, 17 & 18 are looking at specific high concentrations of Silicon, Aluminium and Iron.

Therefore it's incorrect to infer that no Zn, Mg or Cr is present post soaking and therefore contamination.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
The reasonable conclusion to draw is these were contaminants. The post-soaked chip has none of the elements necessary for the primer. Therefore it isn't primer. And yes, they were indeed there from the dust.
No, as shown above.


Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
More significantly, the MEK chip also contains elemental Aluminium, thus fulfilling a very risky prediction of the thermitic theory. That is pretty good confirmation because elemental Al does not occur naturally, not without an intermediary manufacturing process. Then there's the post-ignited chips with the previously molten iron on the edges. What do you make of that?
Pure aluminium has not been shown to be present. That would require a technique to show specific inter-atomic spacing and therefore crystal structure. This was never performed.

Tnemec red paint contains:



What they are seeing is likely to be aluminates as indicated by the crossover of O and Al in the EDX mapping. There maybe Al particulate in nuisance dust but this is inconclusive. It's a shame that they never managed to perform the same analysis with any of the a-d samples. That would have shown something completely different because kaolin isn't solvent in MEK.

Already answered the spherical iron question.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Then there's the fact that they found chips which ignite at all! Much more surprising is that they produce MOLTEN IRON as a by-product. How does that not trump all your vacuous concerns of chip contamination and draw immediate attention? Moreover, how do you fail to see the over-arching corroboration of the thermitic theory, (which we should be a thermitic fact at this point), in the constituent morphologies, chemical signatures, energetic signature, and the sheer fact that this material had to have been manufactured under very tight parameters?
Epoxy will ignite at around 400C. It's not surprising that heating paint chips to such a temperature will cause ignition.

It's the reason why Millette used low temperature ashing in order to separate the embedded particles so they could be analysed. Going higher would have produced a residue containing small spheres which can't be analysed for their constituent parts.

The DSC experiment is a red herring. That test does not tell anyone what the constituent parts of the red material is. No competent person attempting to positively identify the material would ever perform a test that effectively destroys the sample without good reason.

They never identified what the matrix material was. They never identified what the hexagonal platelet material was. Both of these can be positively identified with the same test, namely FTIR. They claim to have performed such testing but left it out of the paper in favour of nonsense such as the MEK test, electrical conductance and ignition with a blow torch.

Your molten iron exclamation has already been answered.

I have a degree in Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, I've nearly 20 years experience in the field, mostly within the aerospace industry. Materials characterisation is something I've been trained in because it's required for materials analysis and failure investigation (forensic metallurgy), so I can read the data in the Harrit et al paper with the same ease that you can read "See Spot Run". What appears to be a cohesive, comprehensive and conclusive paper to those who don't have the experience, is actually a horrible mess with poor methodology and wrongful conclusions (even though the spade work, such as SEM analysis is actually very good).

I understand the "constituent morphologies", because I identified them when the Harrit et al paper was published in 2009. I identified the hexagonal platelet particles as being kaolin weeks after the paper came out. That observation and analysis was confirmed by Dr Millette when Chris Mohr contracted him to perform the test program of which I had no part. I didn't contribute financially either so as to maintain impartiality.

I understand fully the "chemical signatures" and the "energetic signature", but none of them point toward the conclusion that thermite, nano or otherwise is the material present. In fact it's the opposite because the total W/g is too high for thermite, nano or otherwise.

Your last point saying "this material had to have been manufactured under very tight parameters" is quite correct. Paint manufacturers have to have a high degree of quality control because their product depends on it. However, you statement doesn't quite chime with this statement in Harrit et al:

Quote:
We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others?
So your material manufactured under very tight parameters doesn't ring true.

The simple explanation is Harrit et al separated and observed different red paint material, but considered any material separated by a magnet that had a red layer to be thermite. Hence the questions.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
It all falls into place. It takes a force of will to fight these facts, and I salute you in your effort. It's got to take a lot of work to make up new excuses every day to deny their conclusions.

Great argument.
It all falls into place when a proper analyse of the data in the paper along with supplementary data provided by Harrit, Jones, Farrer and Basile is performed. You would know this if you'd read the original threads on the paper and followed the work by Oystein, Ivan, myself, Dr Millette (via Chris Mohr and the people who funded that program) and many others*.

* Special mention to Animus or The Animal (can't remember) who provided Oystein with guidance and the Monte-Carlo simulation software for EDX analysis.
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 28th May 2015, 03:36 PM   #162
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
If I can find it there is a. NASA studies that states that theory is wrong that the nano aluminum simply reaches ignition temp faster, because of the smaller particle size.
Yep, this is true.

Particle size has an affect on the ignition temperature of thermite, specifically the size of the Al particle. Although one must take into account the depth of the Al2O3 coating of the particle. For example, if the oxidation depth is 5nm then an Al particle of 10nm radius is totally comprised of Al2O3, which is highly stable.

One of the things I looked at with regard to particle size is the ignition temperature. Stupidly I didn't bookmark a paper that I found, which had a comparison of Al particle size and ignition temperature. I haven't managed to find it, but it showed that the ignition temperature of particles below the size of the hexagonal platelets found in Harrit et al ignited way above 430C.
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 28th May 2015, 03:46 PM   #163
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
I've spent all week trying to upload my latest YouTube video. There is a TON of stuff in here about the Millette results, the 2009 thermitic paper, and most interestingly, a torrent of critiques of that 2009 paper by 9/11 controlled demolition advocates! I think it's downloading now, and there are some big surprises in there. I'll create a new thread tonight if the upload is finally successful. It's 43 minutes long as I deal with tons of minutiae; Sunstealer there's stuff here that even you have not seen before.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2015, 08:26 PM   #164
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
OK gang here is my new thread with a link to my video re the WTC dust:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=293443
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2015, 10:48 PM   #165
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What jay_howard showed there lacked context. Apparently, this is a company offering nano-particles with unusual properties - iron oxide for example well under 100 nm, or (in this case) "nano-rods", and unusual shape.

Prices for pigments are lower by a factor of ~1000.


A main process to synthesize iron-III-oxide for pigment production is the Laux-process - in production at Bayer since 1926, starting with an annual capacity of 1,000 metric tons:
http://bayferrox.com/uploads/tx_lxsm...compressed.pdf

The document goes on to describe the different pigment properties resulting from particle size:

Note that 0.09 μm = 90 nm.

Note that this red shade with a "yellow undertone" (i.e. orangish red) is rather typical for WTC primer.

Note that the physics that make red iron oxide pigment red with a yellow undertone have not changed since 1926: It requires a particle size near 100 nm - and clearly, paint manufacturers have been able for many many decades to produce red iron oxide pigments with those shades.

Here is a technical data sheet for a Lanxess/Bayferrox 110 M pigment:
http://bayferrox.de/fileadmin/pdf/IP...-110-M-ENG.pdf
Note the predominant particle size: 0.09 m = 90 nm


Another company offering bulk amounts of pigments is the Shanghai Yipin Pigments Co., Ltd. Here is their range of standard red iron oxide pigments:
http://en.yipin.com/list-IronOxideRed1.html
Open the Technical Data Sheets (TDS) at your leisure and find that, for example, the S110 Iron Oxide Red comes in a predominant particle size of 0.1 m = 100 nm and is offered in standard packaging of 25 kg bags - this stuff is not sold by the gram!

Now I suggest that you google: "red iron oxide pigment quotes"
You should get lots and lots of offers for red iron oxide pigment. Mostly from China or India where mass production of this low tech product is cheap. They sometimes write things like "similar Bayferrox 110". Prices typically in the range 1,000 US$ per 1,000 kg.

1 ton of iron oxide pigment is good for about 3-4 tons of primer paint (epoxy based, for example), which in turn is around 3 cubic meters of paint.
Applied to a thickness of 50 m = 0.000,05 m, this is enough to paint 60,000 m2. The perimeter columns of the twin towers have a circumference of 1.42 m and were 415 m tall, and there were 240 of them per tower. That's a total outer surface of about 140,000 m2. So to paint the entire perimeter columns of both twin towers with a red primer costs you roughly $5,000 in pigments. (Add core columns, floor trusses, and you get closer to $20,000). Sounds prohibitively expensive?

This is pure grift. You're selling two major falsehoods:

1. That uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles are some normal standard in primer since 1926 or 1978, or some time long before 2000.

2. That creation of these particles does not require highly specialised manufacturing processes.

These samples are much more specialised than paint pigments. And of course, paint/primer doesn't turn into iron when it ignites. Nor does it have elemental Al. Nor does it ignite at 430C. And Primer has Mg, Zn and Cr, which were not found in the cleaned/cleaved samples.

I was wrong about the pricing, but the facts remain: these particles do not happen without a tremendous amount of technology and expertise, and they are not found in industrial primer.


.
jay howard 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 28th May 2015, 11:06 PM   #166
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
This is pure grift. You're selling two major falsehoods:

1. That uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles are some normal standard in primer since 1926 or 1978, or some time long before 2000.

2. That creation of these particles does not require highly specialised manufacturing processes.

These samples are much more specialised than paint pigments. And of course, paint/primer doesn't turn into iron when it ignites. Nor does it have elemental Al. Nor does it ignite at 430C. And Primer has Mg, Zn and Cr, which were not found in the cleaned/cleaved samples.

I was wrong about the pricing, but the facts remain: these particles do not happen without a tremendous amount of technology and expertise, and they are not found in industrial primer.
That is abject BS, Jay Howard, as anyone with access to Google can verify, as I did after reading your post and before reading Oystein's. If this ever even qualified as a "debate," it's over and you lost; deal with it and stop wasting everyone's time.
WilliamSeger 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 29th May 2015, 01:22 AM   #167
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,232
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
* Special mention to Animus or The Animal (can't remember) who provided Oystein with guidance and the Monte-Carlo simulation software for EDX analysis.
The Almond
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 29th May 2015, 05:45 AM   #168
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
This is pure grift. You're selling two major falsehoods:

1. That uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles are some normal standard in primer since 1926 or 1978, or some time long before 2000.

2. That creation of these particles does not require highly specialised manufacturing processes.
You have a problem right here, because James Millette found those particles during his analysis:
Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...12webHiRes.pdf

Therefore, with that denial you're either conceding that Millette had the right chips and therefore there was no aluminium in them (so it would be a hi-tech material with unknown properties but not thermite) or if you claim that Millette had the wrong chips and that he found paint, then his findings contradict your assertion.
__________________
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 29th May 2015, 06:04 AM   #169
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 647
Give it up Jay, thermite is dead. It was the great lie of the 9/11 truth movement.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 29th May 2015, 08:21 AM   #170
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
That is abject BS, Jay Howard, as anyone with access to Google can verify, as I did after reading your post and before reading Oystein's. If this ever even qualified as a "debate," it's over and you lost; deal with it and stop wasting everyone's time.

Is that an argument? "Deal with it."? That's pretty thin, and as usual, dependent on the ignorance of others to make any sense.

If whatever claim you're making is so easy to verify, why not post whatever debate-ending evidence you have and let everyone see for themselves what is and is not in play?
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 08:22 AM   #171
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Give it up Jay, thermite is dead. It was the great lie of the 9/11 truth movement.

If there was no substance with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and elemental Al in it, you might have a point. But there is, so you don't.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 08:41 AM   #172
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,040
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
This is pure grift. You're selling two major falsehoods:.
Projection, you are selling lies, of CD, inside job, thermite, explosives, and assorted lies to support the lies.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
1. That uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles are some normal standard in primer since 1926 or 1978, or some time long before 2000. .
Pigments have to be uniform, a fact you overlook as you make up lies about it. You say no way, it is why it is pigment, it is uniform. Big mistake, it shows you don't care about facts, you have your fantasy to protect, so you make up nonsense. You made it up, no sources, just you.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
2. That creation of these particles does not require highly specialised manufacturing processes. .
Who said a manufacturing process is not specialized? This is nonsense, means nothing. Processes are complicated, engineered to do a specific task. You were caught making up lies about pigments; now you go on some tangent making up stuff people did not say.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
These samples are much more specialised than paint pigments. And of course, paint/primer doesn't turn into iron when it ignites. Nor does it have elemental Al. Nor does it ignite at 430C. And Primer has Mg, Zn and Cr, which were not found in the cleaned/cleaved samples. .
Total nonsense. You have dust which failed to have the same energy as thermite. Big mistake. Paper will ignite at 430C. Another big error.
Are you saying Al is not found in coatings? Big mistake. Al is a pigment too. You can't do more than fail spreading lies of thermite based on an old man's failed biases and fantasy.
And you failed to prove Al was elemental. Big mistake, as you make up more lies.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
I was wrong about the pricing, but the facts remain: these particles do not happen without a tremendous amount of technology and expertise, and they are not found in industrial primer. .
You were wrong about pigments being uniform they have to be, you were wrong about not only the pricing but the substance. You make up lies to support your lie of CD by thermite. Failing to realize not one piece of steel showed signs of damage by thermite. Scientists looking for anomalies failed to find any thermite products, or damage by thermite. Firemen failed to find anything to support thermite.

What was the thermite, painted on the steel? How does that work?

Jones started a cult of thermite based on his word, and he has gone on to the next fantasy. Faking a paper conclusion, which the paper debunks clearly. Fooling a fringe few, where is Jones now.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 29th May 2015, 08:43 AM   #173
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You have a problem right here, because James Millette found those particles during his analysis:
Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.
http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...12webHiRes.pdf

Therefore, with that denial you're either conceding that Millette had the right chips and therefore there was no aluminium in them (so it would be a hi-tech material with unknown properties but not thermite) or if you claim that Millette had the wrong chips and that he found paint, then his findings contradict your assertion.


Positive claims don't work like that: once the elemental Al was verified with the XEDS mapping on the MEK chip, then it's found. If subsequent analysis does not find elemental Al, and they don't use the same techniques of the positive test, then the null test simply isn't a good test.

You can't make elemental Al go away just because someone else's test protocol did not find it. That's exactly what sticking your head in the ground looks like. There wasn't anything wrong with the way they did their math on the XEDS maps, so you can't dismiss their findings. The fact that Millette didn't find it means, more likely, he missed it.

Otherwise, you can't make sense of the presence of it in ratios that far exceed the oxygen as well as silicon. It's not bound to the O2 nor to the Si.

What makes your argument here decidedly ignorant (and very similar to Oystein's position) is that you choose a lower-probability claim that the XEDS maps by Harrit, et. al. cannot be right (which fits your dismissive attitude), over the higher-probability claim that the XEDS maps are indeed correct.

Your appealing to the Millette study (i.e., that he didn't find any elemental Al), as a reason to dismiss the positive test for elemental Al. In no other field does this reasoning work. But that only matters if you're trying to do good science. That's not your goal, clearly. You (and Oystein) want so badly to make the red/gray chips go away. So you're misinterpreting the Millette results in a way that no scientist would agree with.

Think about it like this: if you get 2 blood tests for Ebola, one positive and one negative, aside from getting another blood test, how would you proceed? The rational attitude is to take the positive results to heart unless you can show how that positive test was corrupted by exogenous Ebola.

Meanwhile, your conceptual house is burning: there is no primer paint in the world made in 1970 (or even to this day) that uses uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles.

Nor do you have a sample of paint/primer that ignites at 430C

Nor does a paint/primer exist that, when ignited, produces MOLTEN IRON as a by-product.

The fact that you don't consider these problems belies your non-skeptical, apologetic stance at any cost. You don't give a bucket of hooker vomit if your argument ignores basic scientific/rational thought processes. You only care if people quit thinking about why this highly-engineered material was in the WTC dust.

Appealing to Millette to dismiss the XEDS maps by Harrit, et. al. is more grift, or at least poor understanding of how conclusions are derived.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 09:03 AM   #174
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
It's all getting desperate for truthers ^
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 29th May 2015, 09:23 AM   #175
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Positive claims don't work like that: once the elemental Al was verified with the XEDS mapping on the MEK chip, then it's found. If subsequent analysis does not find elemental Al, and they don't use the same techniques of the positive test, then the null test simply isn't a good test.

You can't make elemental Al go away just because someone else's test protocol did not find it. That's exactly what sticking your head in the ground looks like. There wasn't anything wrong with the way they did their math on the XEDS maps, so you can't dismiss their findings. The fact that Millette didn't find it means, more likely, he missed it.
Oh, so you believe that Millette did have the right chips. That's good to know, because in that case, the fact that his MEK soaking produces radically different results to those in the Bentham paper, after following the same protocol, debunks your claim that the MEK-soaked chip is the same type as the chips in figure 2 a-d.

He missed the aluminium because it wasn't there in that kind of chips, and he proves that conclusively by competent scientific methods. If the Bentham paper had better data on what the MEK chip actually is, we could be discussing your claims more seriously, but being so different to the rest, you don't even have a basis to claim the MEK chip has Fe2O3 100nm particles.
__________________
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 29th May 2015, 09:53 AM   #176
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 647
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
If there was no substance with uniform 100 nm Fe2O3 particles and elemental Al in it, you might have a point. But there is, so you don't.
Thermite? It's not a high explosive, it's an incendiary, and totally ineffective in the precision cutting of steel frame members, which is required for the controlled demolition of high rise steel frame buildings.

We might as well be talking about peanut butter, or magic pixie dust.

Thermite is a lie, designed to energize the faithful, and keep the money flowing to the Truth movement.
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 29th May 2015, 10:37 AM   #177
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
It's all getting desperate for truthers ^

Nothing says desperation like a non-argument. ^^

My argument is very clear: these chips are a high-tech, composite produced in a laboratory. Primer paint is not anything like this.

Primer paint does not contain elemental Al.

If you had a sample of primer paint that ignited at 430C and produced molten iron as a by-product, that would throw the Harrit paper into doubt. But if you did, that company would have been long sued into the ground for selling a product that can melt steel when ignited with a lighter.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 10:52 AM   #178
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Nothing says desperation like a non-argument. ^^

My argument is very clear: these chips are a high-tech, composite produced in a laboratory. Primer paint is not anything like this.

Primer paint does not contain elemental Al.

If you had a sample of primer paint that ignited at 430C and produced molten iron as a by-product, that would throw the Harrit paper into doubt. But if you did, that company would have been long sued into the ground for selling a product that can melt steel when ignited with a lighter.
Ok, where is the laboratory ? And where are the samples you compared your red gray chips to.

Have you seen Chris Mohr's video ?

Last edited by Spanx; 29th May 2015 at 10:53 AM.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 10:59 AM   #179
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Thermite? It's not a high explosive, it's an incendiary, and totally ineffective in the precision cutting of steel frame members, which is required for the controlled demolition of high rise steel frame buildings.

We might as well be talking about peanut butter, or magic pixie dust.

Thermite is a lie, designed to energize the faithful, and keep the money flowing to the Truth movement.

You're basically making two disingenuine claims here:

1. That the red/gray chips are "thermite," or that nanothermite behaves like conventional thermite.

2. That the truth movement is where the real money is


1. As for the first, it's clear that nanothermite behaves much differently than conventional thermite, specifically, by increasing the reaction rate and decreasing energy losses on transport of constituents. Also, the addition of the hydrocarbon matrix or binder is used to do pressure volume work, or "explosivity". By tailoring the particle sizes and concentrations, the explosive/incendiary properties can be suited to a wide range of applications

Make no mistake about it, nanothermite existed (experimentally) in 2000, as those who quoted the Gash, et. al. paper can attest to. Right, Oystein? So, if Oystein is being honest, he knows your claim is irrelevant to this argument.

2. Ah yes, that sweet, sweet 911 truth money. Oh yea. That's rich, coming from an apologist for Pentagon contractors. "Nothing to see here. Sure, we lost 2 TRILLION dollars on 9/10/2001, but we haven't checked the couch yet."

Such a load of ********. If you, or anyone doubting Harrit's analysis of the red/gray chips, you would've shown a micrograph of the same material in a different setting. But it doesn't exist in the paint world. Because it's not paint.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 11:02 AM   #180
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,040
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
...
2. Ah yes, that sweet, sweet 911 truth money. Oh yea. That's rich, coming from an apologist for Pentagon contractors. "Nothing to see here. Sure, we lost 2 TRILLION dollars on 9/10/2001, but we haven't checked the couch yet."

Such a load of ********. If you, or anyone doubting Harrit's analysis of the red/gray chips, you would've shown a micrograph of the same material in a different setting. But it doesn't exist in the paint world. Because it's not paint.
2 trillion dollars were not lost. What a failed 911 truth tag-line. Makes the fantasy of thermite dumber to quote a failed claim.

Harrit and Jones lied about thermite, a fringe few believe the lies.

In the chips from Jones fraud paper, there is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles. Darn you lost this round, 13 years of BS.

You were fooled by old men who made up BS. Only Gage is using the money in 911 truth. The 911 truth movement of lies is making money for a fringe few, like Gage; if you work with Gage you will do so for free, as a volunteer, a cult member serving the guy who rakes in 500k/yr by selling lies.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 29th May 2015 at 11:04 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 29th May 2015, 11:54 AM   #181
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
2 trillion dollars were not lost.
Correction, what do the 2 trillion dollars - real or none - have to do with arguing "CD"? Answer: nothing - it's a red herring. If he'd like to argue it as a case for inside complicity very well, however it has nothing to do with this subject at hand.
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 29th May 2015, 12:11 PM   #182
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,040
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Correction, what do the 2 trillion dollars - real or none - have to do with arguing "CD"? Answer: nothing - it's a red herring. If he'd like to argue it as a case for inside complicity very well, however it has nothing to do with this subject at hand.
I know, it was funny, out of the blue comes the Rumsfeld quote mined tagline from 911 truth bag of failure.
Wait long enough and the BS fails, and out comes the 2.3 trillion dollar missing BS. Guess thermite evidence is missing, out comes the BS off topic taglines.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 29th May 2015, 12:15 PM   #183
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The Almond
Thank you - It's been a while.

Reminds me of how many people actually contributed to the old JREF threads and the good work that was done.
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 29th May 2015, 12:28 PM   #184
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,630
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you - It's been a while.

Reminds me of how many people actually contributed to the old JREF threads and the good work that was done.
Not to mention your contribution. I wouldn't have understood all the fine details without your patient explanation.

I knew the paper was bunk * after I asked two PhD level chemist (my ex and her boss) to read it and they both said, "Their conclusions are not supported by their data". Neither really saw it as a serious piece of work.


* not that I saw any reason to think it was valid.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 29th May 2015 at 12:32 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 12:33 PM   #185
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,789
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I know, it was funny, out of the blue comes the Rumsfeld quote mined tagline from 911 truth bag of failure.
Wait long enough and the BS fails, and out comes the 2.3 trillion dollar missing BS. Guess thermite evidence is missing, out comes the BS off topic taglines.
Larry and "Pull it" are next, followed by the BBC mistaken report. Then Thetans. (Oops, wrong religion)
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 29th May 2015, 12:49 PM   #186
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Oh, so you believe that Millette did have the right chips. That's good to know, because in that case, the fact that his MEK soaking produces radically different results to those in the Bentham paper, after following the same protocol, debunks your claim that the MEK-soaked chip is the same type as the chips in figure 2 a-d.
You are confused. Or more likely, purposely wrong. Either way, you take nothing away from the results of Harrit's, et. al., analysis of the chips.


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
He missed the aluminium because it wasn't there in that kind of chips, and he proves that conclusively by competent scientific methods.
You sound like the NIST report authors: "competent scientific stuff was done, and we assure you, it was done properly."

Did you check for explosives/incendiaries?

NIST: "Nope. Because there weren't any. See? Very scientific."


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
If the Bentham paper had better data on what the MEK chip actually is, we could be discussing your claims more seriously, but being so different to the rest, you don't even have a basis to claim the MEK chip has Fe2O3 100nm particles.
Except the work of Harrit, et. al. You don't have a single reason to dismiss their work. If you gave a damn at all about scientific rigor, you would have to deal with good scientific analysis that shows elemental Al in the substrate.

You're entire "argument" if you can call it that, is based on ignoring results that don't fit your preconcieved ideas. That's the best you can do: ignore results that fly in the face of the "paint hypothesis". Otherwise, you're stuck with serious problems/questions that the assumption of paint cannot answer, like "if this is paint, why does is ignite at such a low temp and why and how could it produce molten iron."

So, to be clear, are you saying all the samples in the Harrit paper are paint/primer?



.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 12:50 PM   #187
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Larry and "Pull it" are next, followed by the BBC mistaken report. Then Thetans. (Oops, wrong religion)
The power down
Marvin Bush - Head of Security
No jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeews reported to work

My ll time favorite - thermite ceiling tiles.
Animal 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 29th May 2015, 12:53 PM   #188
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you - It's been a while.

Reminds me of how many people actually contributed to the old JREF threads and the good work that was done.
Sunstealer, YOU contributed a lot to my understanding of the 2009 thermitic paper, as you will see in my 43 minute video. It's long and detailed, but there are some things in there even you will be seeing for the first time...
And Jay you will see from my new video that the 2009 thermitic paper is the single most divisive thing in the 9/11 Truth movement. The things your allies have said about it will surprise you.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 12:55 PM   #189
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,630
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
You are confused. Or more likely, purposely wrong. Either way, you take nothing away from the results of Harrit's, et. al., analysis of the chips.
Could you show us how the Millette chips were chemically different? You can use data from both if you like.

My guess is you hand-wave it like everything else.

Don't get me wrong. So far you're the best debunker of the Harrit paper I've seen in years.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 12:57 PM   #190
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Correction, what do the 2 trillion dollars - real or none - have to do with arguing "CD"? Answer: nothing - it's a red herring. If he'd like to argue it as a case for inside complicity very well, however it has nothing to do with this subject at hand.


Did you compare that with the relevance of MileHighMadness's argument?

His claim: "Thermite is a lie, designed to energize the faithful, and keep the money flowing to the Truth movement."

First of all, it's a complete fabrication. As if I had a damned thing to do with whatever accounts he's talking about. Secondly, is that relevant to the sizing or composition of particles, or the ignition temp or by-products of these samples? We both know it's not, but you don't say anything when your buddy pulls this crap. Another reason I can't take you seriously.
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 01:08 PM   #191
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,040
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Did you compare that with the relevance of MileHighMadness's argument?

His claim: "Thermite is a lie, designed to energize the faithful, and keep the money flowing to the Truth movement."

First of all, it's a complete fabrication. As if I had a damned thing to do with whatever accounts he's talking about. Secondly, is that relevant to the sizing or composition of particles, or the ignition temp or by-products of these samples? We both know it's not, but you don't say anything when your buddy pulls this crap. Another reason I can't take you seriously.
Thermite is a lie made up by Jones four years after 911. Jones when nuts or crazy about war, so he lies about 911. Zero thermite used on 911. Who did the evil thermite fantasy?

Got any clue after 13 years? Any names?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 29th May 2015 at 01:10 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 29th May 2015, 01:18 PM   #192
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,630
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Did you compare that with the relevance of MileHighMadness's argument?

His claim: "Thermite is a lie, designed to energize the faithful, and keep the money flowing to the Truth movement."

First of all, it's a complete fabrication. As if I had a damned thing to do with whatever accounts he's talking about. Secondly, is that relevant to the sizing or composition of particles, or the ignition temp or by-products of these samples? We both know it's not, but you don't say anything when your buddy pulls this crap. Another reason I can't take you seriously.
Is English not your primary language? It would explain a lot if it wasn't.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 01:38 PM   #193
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Could you show us how the Millette chips were chemically different? You can use data from both if you like.

My guess is you hand-wave it like everything else.

Don't get me wrong. So far you're the best debunker of the Harrit paper I've seen in years. :rolleyes

I can read the papers. Why can't you? You seem convinced I'm wrong. How did you get to that conclusion if you can't make sense of the data?
jay howard 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 29th May 2015, 01:45 PM   #194
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,232
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you - It's been a while.

Reminds me of how many people actually contributed to the old JREF threads and the good work that was done.
That was like 4 years ago, right? That "which paint" thread was better than anything I have seen here since I returned last august. I am actually proud I opened that. Ivan was a fountain of new discoveries, I was happy to have both you and The Almond advise us on the SEM stuff, and then Chris tagging along and organizing the Millette study was a blast. Only time us debunkers asked for for donations. Money came in quickly, was spent quickly on exactly what it was advertised for, and produced results quiclly.

The Truth Movement hasn't produced anything interesting since then, and all the debunking has also been done. Our job now is to educate - difficult with all the layers of insulation and censorship that so many truthes surround themselves with.

I am thus grateful to meet Jay Howard who has the courage to come to this "lion's den" and take on the opposition.
Wish more of the regulars would take your approach of trying to persuade using facts and science applied with experienced competence.
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 29th May 2015, 01:53 PM   #195
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
experienced competence.

Childlike Empress 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 29th May 2015, 01:57 PM   #196
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,630
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
I can read the papers. Why can't you? You seem convinced I'm wrong. How did you get to that conclusion if you can't make sense of the data?
Easy, I understand the data and the chemistry involved and you only rely on what they tell you. They even say in their paper there had to be some "unknown organic compound" to explain the energy disparity.

I've independently peer reviewed their paper and it's clear why they had to pay to have it published. Funny thing is, no one in the science world has even acknowledged this paper*.

* it has been used a few times to down play the value/objectivity of some open-journals.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 29th May 2015 at 02:00 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 02:00 PM   #197
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,876
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I've independently peer reviewed their paper



Childlike Empress 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 29th May 2015, 02:02 PM   #198
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,630
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post


Why is that funny? I asked a couple PhD level chemist (who I know) to look at the paper and give me their opinion. Are you saying I didn't?

Do you think it's wrong to seek out professional opinions in this case?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 29th May 2015 at 02:04 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2015, 02:12 PM   #199
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Nothing says desperation like a non-argument.
Do these chips ignite in a non-oxygenated environment?
Harrit can't say since he didn't bother trying.
What's that about desperate conclusions?


Quote:
My argument is very clear: these chips are a high-tech, composite produced in a laboratory. Primer paint is not anything like this.
Au contraire, paint companies do indeed have high tech laboratories where they produce paint.

Quote:
Primer paint does not contain elemental Al.
Since "elemental Aluminum never lasts very long before reacting with something else, really not much does contain nano-sized elemental Al.

Quote:
If you had a sample of primer paint that ignited at 430C and produced molten iron as a by-product, that would throw the Harrit paper into doubt. But if you did, that company would have been long sued into the ground for selling a product that can melt steel when ignited with a lighter.
False premise since you have not shown that the item in question CAN melt steel. Red oxide additive does contain iron. Yes in fact I can ignite paint chips with a lighter.

BTW, I mentioned it before and have not seen any response but, has anyone, anywhere, demonstrated melting a steel beam by igniting a layer of anything painted onto its surface? To my knowledge this is strictly a fantasy of the Gage-ists.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th May 2015 at 02:15 PM.
jaydeehess 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 29th May 2015, 02:14 PM   #200
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why is that funny? I asked a couple PhD level chemist (who I know) to look at the paper and give me their opinion. Are you saying I didn't?

Do you think it's wrong to seek out professional opinions in this case?
The opinion of no-planers like CE, on the topic of competence, is really not worth a whole lot. IMHO of course.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th May 2015 at 02:17 PM.
jaydeehess 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 01:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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