ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


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 9/11 conspiracy theories , Bentham journals , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , steven jones , thermite

Reply
Old 12th April 2013, 11:23 AM   #1681
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,490
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Do you really expect a reply to such raving?

I am not lying.

Dr. Harrit et al, to the best of my knowledge, are not lying, and I see no motivation for them to misrepresent their work by lying.

But why should I waste my time thoughtfully replying to garbage.

MM
So it's all about faith.

Actually I respect you for this reply.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2013, 11:35 AM   #1682
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,062
Quote:
(Sunstealer)MM - Has Harrit or any other author reported the FTIR results? yes/no
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Do you really expect a reply to such raving?

I am not lying.

Dr. Harrit et al, to the best of my knowledge, are not lying, and I see no motivation for them to misrepresent their work by lying.

But why should I waste my time thoughtfully replying to garbage.

MM
MM, it seems to me that you and the Truther Remnant are, so to speak, stuck in no-man's land. You're getting no support, nada, from Harrit et al. You can't go forward until Harrit publishes the FTIR data. XRD data would be a big help, too, along with a DSC done under an inert atmosphere.

You should be demanding that they publish their data. There's no reason not to publish if they've really found nanothermite. (Hint, hint!)

The worst that can happen now is that Harrit publishes the data, and it reveals that they are charlatans and/or boobs. If so, you and the Truther Remnant can pack it in, and get on with the rest of your lives.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2013, 11:43 AM   #1683
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,503
__________________
"El Diablo sabe mas por viejo que por astuto." -Dad - "The Devil knows more because he's old than because he's smart."
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "
- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can lead a truther to facts but you can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.- modified Twain or Swift
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2013, 12:23 PM   #1684
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I am not lying.
The problem is that I see the same thing that Sunstealer and others see when I read "the selection methods described by Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit et al in the 2009 Bentham Paper": they do not include resistivity testing. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the paper reports a test of one chip; there is no hint that any other chips were tested, with similar or dissimilar results.

So when you suggest that Millette should have "expedite[d] the isolation process by using the described resistivity findings clearly described in the Bentham paper," it is hard to understand what you could possibly mean. Again, I find no hint in the paper that resistivity testing was part of an "isolation process."

I have little idea what you are doing, but it seems that you aren't supporting your assault on Millette by referring to the Bentham paper. Perhaps you are relying on Jones to tell you what the paper really says, or really means.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2013, 01:53 PM   #1685
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Do you really expect a reply to such raving?

I am not lying.

Dr. Harrit et al, to the best of my knowledge, are not lying, and I see no motivation for them to misrepresent their work by lying.

But why should I waste my time thoughtfully replying to garbage.

MM
So you refuse to acknowledge that Harrit et al have not presented their FTIR data elsewhere even though that is true. Harrit has a website, why couldn't he simply put the datat there?

You also refuse to acknowledge that the red layer of samples a. b. c and d are the same material. It's interesting to see that you won't even back that conclusion in the paper when everyone, including myself, are in agreement with that particular aspect of the paper.

You agree with the paper's conclusions, but you will not agree with the data. Instead you hand wave away an in-depth post that challenges your own thinking and rips apart your position. You have seen the evidence from the paper's authors regarding the use of a resistivity test, yet you still contradict the very people you claim to support.

You do not have the courage to admit that samples a-d have are the same material because you know that the criteria and logic for doing so will ultimately undermine your refusal to acknowledge that Dr Millette has isolated the same material.

You know this, which is why you categorically refuse to agree with the very paper you support! It's hilarious. Your position is completely untenable. You won't even back the data in the paper you champion!

You have been shown time after time that the very authors of the paper do not agree with you and your made up notion of using resistivity to isolate chips. You are grasping at ever more desperate straws.

There were two very easy and simple questions that I asked you to answer , which would have taken 20 seconds, but instead you refuse to do so. Why do you refuse to answer these questions?

This is what the truth "movement" have come to and it's pathetic. Amusing but pathetic.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 12th April 2013 at 01:58 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 25th April 2013, 08:48 AM   #1686
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,749
I still see that no truther has managed to get anywhere near close to challenging my analysis. How long is that now? 4 years? Yep, I called it right 4 years ago by analysing the data in the paper and showing definitively that the material was red paint containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin in an epoxy matrix adhered to oxidised steel. Dr Millette's study supports these conclusions.

No truther will dare go near the analysis. Instead they try to nit pick. The data in Harrit et al proves the red/gray chips are paint.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 25th April 2013 at 08:49 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2013, 02:40 PM   #1687
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I still see that no truther has managed to get anywhere near close to challenging my analysis. How long is that now? 4 years? Yep, I called it right 4 years ago by analysing the data in the paper and showing definitively that the material was red paint containing iron oxide pigment and kaolin in an epoxy matrix adhered to oxidised steel. Dr Millette's study supports these conclusions.

No truther will dare go near the analysis. Instead they try to nit pick. The data in Harrit et al proves the red/gray chips are paint.
Your analysis is what would be done during the properly supervised peer review process. It would have been invisible to the 9/11 crowd in general, and would have prevented the work from being published at all. Of course, the 9/11 crowd in general has not done the required reading to understand the nature of your critique. Even though they've had 4 years to do it, they couldn't be bothered? Ahh well.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 26th April 2013, 09:34 AM   #1688
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 34,017
Mod WarningPlease, folks, stick to the topic of the thread. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Posted By:LashL
LashL 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 26th April 2013, 12:36 PM   #1689
BenjaminTR
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 525
I recently looked over the Bentham paper again (and the Millette paper), and I have a question about interpreting the XEDS results. I seem to recall members here claiming that the chip soaked in MEK is a different material from chips (a) - (d), and that this could be determined from XEDS.

However, looking at the various spectra across the two papers, it seems that there is a great degree of variability in the relative heights of peaks between the samples, with no clear tendency to group into two readily identifiable sub-groups (as far as these lay eyes can tell). Also, this is apparently not a good method of identifying materials, since Millette went on to do a great deal more. What is the basis for claiming that (a) - (d) is different from the MEK chip?

Finally, does anything significant hang on this issue?
BenjaminTR 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 27th April 2013, 08:00 AM   #1690
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Benjamin,
I will address your points in reverse order:

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
Finally, does anything significant hang on this issue?
Harrit's conclusion is that the red layer of certain red-gray chips contains nano-thermite of the Al+Fe2O3 persuasion that's still active and reacts to form tiny iron balls.
This claim has several distinct elements:
#1 There is iron oxide
#2 There is elemental Al
#3 These come in nano-sized bits
#4 They react, resulting in elemental (or at least reduced) Fe

Now, #1 is uncontroversial - there is good evidence for iron oxide whatever way you look at the red stuffs.

But:
#2 has only been shown (and dubiously so) for one chips, the MEK-soaked one, by virtue of Fig. 17
#3 has only been shown for chips a-d, by virtue of SEM-images showing Al-rich platelets and Fe-rich faceted grains
#4 has been shown for chips that are neither the MEK-soaked one nor chips a-d

To form the conclusion, one can only conflate #2 to #4 if one assumes, or proves, that all these chips are essentially the same material.

Once you allow that some may really be just paint and contain no thermite, then the conclusion becomes invalid.

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
What is the basis for claiming that (a) - (d) is different from the MEK chip?
Here are the EDS-spectra for the red and gray layers of chips a-d:
Red layer a-d
Gray layer a+b, Gray layer c+d

These spectra, plus the identical visual appearance of the microstructure under SEM, are good evidence that these four chips are indeed the same material: They show basically only five elements: C, O, Al, Si and Fe; and only tiny traces of other stuff. An important hint is that in all four red layers, the peaks for Al and Si are almost identical in height, which does in fact mean nearly identical mass- and atomic proportions. This is particularly important when one looks at Fig. 10, in which we can see that the spacial distributions of Al and Si are practically identical, and they coincide with the platelets in 10a. Which means these platelets are made of something that has equal Al and Si, and there is no significant Al or Si elsewhere in these red layers.

Contrast this with Figure 14:
Here you have very significant Ca, very significant S - both are absent from Chips a-d. The peaks for Zn and Cr are pretty significant, too, and, perhaps most importantly, there is very little Al compared to Si.
Harrit et al fail to show the microstructure of this red layer.
So there is zero evidence that this MEK-soaked chip is the same material as chips a-d, but there are several indications that it probably is different.

The burden of evidence is on Harrit et al: Remember, the whole point of showing this MEK-soak is to "prove" that there is Al separate from Si, and in fact elemental. This finding of elemental Al can only be applied to the other chips - those that burn vigorously; those that have nano-sized pigments - if you show that it's the same material. But they haven't shown that. We don't have to prove it's a different material (although we are very certain).


Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
Also, this [XEDS] is apparently not a good method of identifying materials, since Millette went on to do a great deal more.
Half true.
In isolation, it wouldn't be sufficient to identify.
But it does help a lot positively - much better than DSC. A large peak around 3.69 keV in an XEDS spectrum when there is none at 3.44 keV is positive proof for significant Ca (the 3.44 controls for Sn, which has a signal very near the 3.69 Ca-peak, but would also have a larger signal at 3.44).

This in contrast to DSC, where an exotherm at 430 °C could mean a thousand things.

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
However, looking at the various spectra across the two papers, it seems that there is a great degree of variability in the relative heights of peaks between the samples, with no clear tendency to group into two readily identifiable sub-groups (as far as these lay eyes can tell).
Looking at Millette's data, you are absolutely right - but why limit this to just two readily identifiable sub-groups? We already know that the twin towers had their steel primed with at least two different red primers, but there may have been more. And we can be pretty sure that Building 7, having been built 15 years later or so, had a another primer still. There are thousands of other things painted red in those collapsed buildings.

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
I recently looked over the Bentham paper again (and the Millette paper), and I have a question about interpreting the XEDS results. I seem to recall members here claiming that the chip soaked in MEK is a different material from chips (a) - (d), and that this could be determined from XEDS.
Do you see now how this can indeed be done, but that the reverse question - "are they the same?" - is implicitly claimed, but unproven, by Harrit et al?
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 28th April 2013, 04:16 PM   #1691
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,749
Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
I recently looked over the Bentham paper again (and the Millette paper), and I have a question about interpreting the XEDS results. I seem to recall members here claiming that the chip soaked in MEK is a different material from chips (a) - (d), and that this could be determined from XEDS.

However, looking at the various spectra across the two papers, it seems that there is a great degree of variability in the relative heights of peaks between the samples, with no clear tendency to group into two readily identifiable sub-groups (as far as these lay eyes can tell).
I understand with regard to seeing a degree of variability.

In the Harrit et al a paper there are 5 spectra for the red layer namely samples:

a,b,c and d
and the chip soaked in MEK.

The authors without a shadow of a doubt had more, but there are space constraints when publishing.

In contrast and because he has no restraints, Dr Millette has put out a progress report that has EDX spectra for the red layer in a number of the samples he was able to separate from the dust using a magnet, although I expect that there is a degree of common sense applied with regard to this.

For example he shows photographs taken from an optical microscope of red/gray chips isolated from the dust using the same method as Harrit et al and then labels each red chip that has been analysed by EDX numerically. However, optical sample M3451 (page28) with 16 EDX spectra isn't labelled in the report.

What Dr Millette has then done is to look at these EDX spectra and take the ones that match samples a-d in Harrit et al and perform a more thorough analysis using three techniques (detailed SEM, FTIR and TEM-SAED) to determine composition of those samples.

It is not unreasonable to expect a range of EDX spectra in the samples because the isolation method as detailed in Harrit et al will isolate any magnetic material. (Que MM with the resistivity bollocks)

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
Also, this is apparently not a good method of identifying materials, since Millette went on to do a great deal more. What is the basis for claiming that (a) - (d) is different from the MEK chip?
To continue, Millette's red/gray chips whose red layer matched samples a-d in Fig 7 of Harrit et al where further subjected to a more detailed SEM examination. What Dr Millette found was that the same particles with the same shape/morphology where found in his samples as that in Harrit et al. Those particles (hexagonal platelets and rhomboids) also shared the same EDX spectrum of those found in Harrit et al's samples a-d.

Therefore it's safe to conclude he has analysed the same material found in samples a-d.

With regard to the MEK sample then we only have the EDX spectrum of it's red layer as found in Fig 14 (Harrit et al) to go on. This spectrum is radically different to those found in Fig 7 so no one can conclude that the red layer in this chip is the same as those found in samples a-d even with the explanation that this spectrum contains contamination.

There are no detailed SEM pictures of the particles and any matrix for this MEK soaked chip available.

When you take into account the fact that Dr Jones shows in one of his talks an EDX spectrum of Tnemec Red primer paint that is very close match to that of Fig 14 in Harrit et al (MEK soaked chip), then there is very good reason to determine that the spectrum in Fig 14 is a different material to that in Fig 7 of the Harrit et al paper.

In the other thread I picked out a number of EDX spectra from Millette's progress report that had similar characteristics to those found in Fig 14 and suspected to be Tnemec red primer paint.

Considering the isolation method as detailed in Harrit et al then it's not surprising that both Millette and Harrit/Jones etc separated rust with different red paints attached.

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
Finally, does anything significant hang on this issue?
Yes, Harrit et al claimed they had evidence of thermite even though it's apparent that they had isolated two different red paints.

The fact that they could not characterize their samples properly shows their paper is nonsense.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 28th April 2013 at 04:18 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 28th April 2013, 07:12 PM   #1692
BenjaminTR
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 525
Thanks, Oystein and Sunstealer. That helps.
BenjaminTR 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 27th May 2013, 06:45 AM   #1693
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
I am currently browsing Henryco's work on darksideofgravity.com and came across the following news item and graphs:

- Open http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11 Septembre 2001.html
- Search for "9/11/2008"

Henryco was in the process of translating Richard Gage's big PowerPoint presentation, and noticed that a couple of graphics showing XEDS spectra had been replace - and he saved them for posteriority. Here is a Google-Translate translation of the interesting part:
"It was during the translation ppt Richard Gage I noted a number of changes to the document of architects and engineers who lead me to conclude that the heroes of September 11, undergoing pressures and threats are forced to falsify their own publications. The details of my exchanges emails or I expose my arguments is on this forum but can also be downloaded here (. Txt).

Slides were replaced
Spectrum of microspheres vs. thermite: Old New
Spectrum vs. thermite red chips: Old1, Old2, New
..."
Now I don't care what Henryco is bitching about there. Just open the graphs and take note:
  • XEDS spectra apparently were taken over quite a span of time; the five images bear dates from March to December 2007
  • They show microsphere XEDS from a thermite experiment by someone named Parulis - that contained no Si!
  • One spectrum, the "Old1" one from "Bridge" (that would be Sample 2 in the Bentham paper, as the Delessio/Breidenbach dust was collected from a handrail on Brooklyn Bridge) labeled "tomb red 2" and bearing the filename "E:\Jones\12_10_07\tomb red 2.spc", has a bit of Ti (so much for Jones not finding Ti in red layer!) - and it comes with a (standardless) quantification: atomic proportions are 44% O, 33% Fe, 7.7% Si, 7.0% Al, and bits of other stuff (strange that there is only a small C-peak, and no quantity of C given)
  • And here comes the bummer: This "Bridge" spectrum of a red chip side, from an older version of Gage's presentation, is shown in the New slied as: "X-EDS of Traditional Thermite"! (Caution: A possible explanation is that the caption below the "Old1" image on the right is simply misplaced)



Another "by the way":
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-12-2...comment-172358

-> SE Jones confirms that he got together with Richard Gage as early as December 2007 to discuss efforts to continue the research on "thermite" that. apparently, Jones had largely done by himself.
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 27th May 2013, 07:26 AM   #1694
Sunstealer
Master Poster
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,749
McCrone particle atlas is available for free online now.

http://www.mccrone.com/press/2012/09/11

Looks like you have to register to get all the goodies, but it's a very useful tool.
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 27th May 2013, 09:36 AM   #1695
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
McCrone particle atlas is available for free online now.

http://www.mccrone.com/press/2012/09/11

Looks like you have to register to get all the goodies, but it's a very useful tool.
Excellent, dude!

Without registration, you get a simple search only (by keyword), and only an overview on particles (description of elemental composition, morphology and such, plus a couple of photo light microscopy images). With registration, you get more advanced search options (by elements; shapes; etc), plus more PLM, SEM, EDS, FTIR; Raman, TEM data (not all of these for every search result; just what they have).

*bookmarked and registered*
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 27th May 2013, 10:18 AM   #1696
Jono
Graduate Poster
 
Jono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,896
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
McCrone particle atlas is available for free online now.

http://www.mccrone.com/press/2012/09/11

Looks like you have to register to get all the goodies, but it's a very useful tool.
Flashback of a post I actually had bookmarked.
Excerpt:
Quote:
Dual layered (one gray, one colored) chips are identified in the MPA in sections 12:001100 and 28:011100. Interestingly, MPA notes, "Throughout the sample, individually dispersed and attached to the primer layer, is rust (see iron oxide). The sample came from a newly painted steel bridge from which the paint was flaking off." It goes on further to state, "[...] the paint particles are seen to be composed of tiny (less than 1 um) [...] rounded pigment particles." McCrone Particle Atlas, volume 2 (1973), page 529.

That's it, MM, you're done. In dust, as a component of ordinary, non-thermite induced activities, paint chips (distinguished by a gray layer adhered to a colored layer) are often found. Said paint chips contain not only iron oxide (when they're applied to steel), but are also composed of micron sized particles making up the pigments. The production of so called "iron rich microspheres" is no more proof of thermite than the presence of unicorn dung.
__________________
"I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard
Jono 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 27th May 2013, 08:51 PM   #1697
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  • And here comes the bummer: This "Bridge" spectrum of a red chip side, from an older version of Gage's presentation, is shown in the New slied as: "X-EDS of Traditional Thermite"! (Caution: A possible explanation is that the caption below the "Old1" image on the right is simply misplaced)
Then why is it also in the "Old2" image on the left side, with caption "Fragment rouge (échantillon 4)" and with the same label "tomb red 2"?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 27th May 2013 at 08:53 PM.
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 27th May 2013, 09:03 PM   #1698
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
A higher resolution version of the first New is in the ever changing stream of slides in Gage's site: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...ide177.PNG.jpg

So it was Actual ThermAte before but it is Actual ThermIte now.

*facepalm*
__________________
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 28th May 2013, 03:58 AM   #1699
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Then why is it also in the "Old2" image on the left side, with caption "Fragment rouge (échantillon 4)" and with the same label "tomb red 2"?
Oops I should have said that the caption on the right of the "New" image may be misplaced. (ETA: The same slide is currently still available from the AE911T presentation as slide 185: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...ide185.PNG.jpg )

On the left in that slide, the caption refers to two samples ("Liberty Apt", ie. MacKinlay, and "Bridge", i.e. Delession/Breidenbach), but only one EDS is shown on the left, while the image on the right shows that which was labeled as the "bridge" sample in the "Old" version of the ppt. So perhaps they simply put the caption on the right on the wrong slide.

Last edited by Oystein; 28th May 2013 at 04:09 AM.
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 28th May 2013, 04:06 AM   #1700
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
A higher resolution version of the first New is in the ever changing stream of slides in Gage's site: http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...ide177.PNG.jpg

So it was Actual ThermAte before but it is Actual ThermIte now.

*facepalm*
Hehe. Right. Also:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...ide181.PNG.jpg "Manganese was also found"
http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2...ide182.PNG.jpg "...significant aluminothermit reactions occurred, with likely ingredients to include ... copper oxide, zinc nitrate, and potassium permanganate".
Now in their supposed "active thermitic material", the red layers, they didn't find copper or manganese, they explicitly deny that zinc is part of the red layer itself, and potassium is spotted only in a minority of the samples, each times in trace amounts much too tiny to make any sense at all as potassium permanganate. So all those findings on those slides are refuted - right? Strange we never heard any retractions from Jones or Gage!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 12:08 PM   #1701
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Where did the Harrit paper and its journal go??

Where did the Harrit paper and its journal go?? I had not looked at the paper and the whole issue in over a year until some days ago, and now find that the paper - is gone? Here is the original link to this online publication:


Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
...
I also think it's essential that a link to Jones' ... paper is in order otherwise we won't know what we are talking about, eh 16.5?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I suggest people download it and open it whenever they wish to comment because it's going to get referenced alot. When people quote from the paper it helps immensely if the page number, the chip sample (*see below) and/or the diagram or graph (Fig #) is also stated so that it can be referenced quickly. ...
The link to bentham-open.org is dead, i.e. you get a message that the domain is for sale.

However, there still is the domain http://benthamopen.com
The Harrit paper was published in a journal called "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" (hence "TOCPJ" in the URL), that's how I always cite it, but I can't find that Journal any more on the Bentham Publishers website, and a search for "Harrit" in that domain comes up empty.

What happened??

Does anyone have an alternative download link?

Last edited by Oystein; 21st September 2014 at 12:09 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 12:43 PM   #1702
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,490
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf


This seems to work. If not, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
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 21st September 2014, 02:27 PM   #1703
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Ah thanks! Your link re-directs to http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf on my browser.

The Open Chemical Physics Journal, which Bentham lists neither under "Journals A-Z" nor under "Journals by subject", has no articles in 2014 so far, only 1 in all of 2013, 3 in 2012, 3 in 2011, none in 2010, 4 in 2009, 10 in its inaugural year 2008. A total of 21 in 7 years, and 11 in the past 6 years.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2014, 02:30 PM   #1704
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,490
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
. A total of 21 in 7 years, and 11 in the past 6 years.
Isn't that how all the reputable journals work?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
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 23rd October 2014, 06:20 AM   #1705
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
To beat a dead horse even deader, and accuse it of crime on top of it, I have upon re-reading the Harrit e.al. paper discovered a detail of semantics worth mentioning:


As far as I can see, there are only three observations that Harrit's team ascribes to all the chips they studied:
  1. Attracted to a magnet
  2. Overall appearance of being red-gray chips
  3. Containing small (100 nm order of magnitude) grains with high average atomic number - iron oxide crystals, it turns out
(The first two are of course the well-known, and only, selection criteria, the thirs is a result that applies to all)

Here's how they word this:

1.+2.: "All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet." (Page 10)
3.: "The BSE images illustrate the finding that all of the red layers studied contained small bright particles or grains characterized by a high average atomic number. The size and presence of the particles was found to be consistent throughout the layers, but the concentration of the particles was found to vary locally, as can be seen from the images."

Searching for the word "all" as a qualifier applied to "chips" yields two more sentences:

4. Page 19: "The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 °C."
-> As this references Fig. 19, ot is not clear whether "all" means "all of those four (but possible not all of those we tested with DSC)" or "all the chips we tested in the DSC (including, but not limited to, those four)".

5. Page 11: "These four cross sections are representative of all the red/gray chips studied from the dust samples."
-> Here, the main reference is to four cross sections of four specimens shown in Fig. 5, but the findings in Fig. 5 are said to be only "representative" of "all" chips. What does "being representative" mean? Have all chips all the characteristics revealed in Fig 5? Or some have all, all have some?

Three more uses of the "representative" ploy:
- Page 12: "X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7)."
- Page 12: "At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8)."
- Page 25: "We show spheres found in the WTC dust (Fig. 27) and a representative XEDS spectrum from such a sphere (Fig. 28); we invite the reader to compare these results with those found for ignition of commercial thermite and for ignition of red/gray chips (above)."

I can't help it, but it seems to me that Harrit e.al. chose their wording very carefully and deliberately. They boldly speak of "all chips studied" when they really mean "all chips studied", i.e. "there is no exception", but present examples of chips or data "representative for all" when they do NOT mean "strictly all, no exception".

Hence, they say that the red layers of all chips contain 100 nm iron oxide grains aka red iron oxide pigment. We perfectly understand why: They are obviously all red because of red pigment.
But they do NOT say that "all" contain Al/Si platelets, or any of the other properties truther like to belabor. It isn't even explicitly stated that all ignited chips showed iron-rich spheroids in the residue!
This is not to say that no further property applies to all chips - just that Harrit e.al. were quite careful about what to attribute to all.

If my reading is true, then I further can't help feeling that they chose their wording very carefully with an intent to deceive readers into believing that all chips contain Al/Si-plates, all ignite around 425 °C, all produce iron-rich spheres, in all of them Al can be separated from Si, etc., even though they state none of this explicitly.



(The other day I had spotted another such detail of semantics, but can't recall now what it was; hope I will later)
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 23rd October 2014, 08:38 AM   #1706
Gamolon
Graduate Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
If my reading is true, then I further can't help feeling that they chose their wording very carefully with an intent to deceive readers into believing that all chips contain Al/Si-plates, all ignite around 425 °C, all produce iron-rich spheres, in all of them Al can be separated from Si, etc., even though they state none of this explicitly.
Agree 100%!

Harrit and his group separated out their chips of interest using the magnet and red/gray layer criteria. They then tested these separated chips and deliberately decided to publish ONLY the results that supported their preconceived notions of demolition and thermite.

Furthermore, they DID NOT perform all tests in the paper on any single chip, but instead performed a few (in some cases, just one test) random tests per chip, and then applied these single chip test results as a whole to the entire pile of chips separated per above. With some clever writing, this gives the impression that all the chips they separated were some form of thermite.

This is why certain folks here in this forum who support the thermite and demolition nonsense have never come up with a concrete list of tests from Harrit's paper that anyone could use to positively identify a thermitic chip out of the dust.

A perfect example of this is the chip (single) used in the paper that had the resitivity test done on it. That chip is not shown to have been tested any other way, yet that resistivity test result is deceptively used to decieve the reader to think that it applies to ALL of the magnetically attracted red/gray chips of interest and that ALL chips studied in the paper had that test performed on it. This is why the resistivity test was picked out by some to be an important test in determining a thermtic chip even though it was performed on only one chip in according to Harrit's paper.

For the reasons stated above, this is why both Harrit and Jones refused to answer my email questions asking if they found any chips in their separated pile that were NOT thermitic or if they performed all tests in the paper on every chip.

They balked at both questions.
Gamolon 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 23rd October 2014, 02:26 PM   #1707
Crazy Chainsaw
Graduate Poster
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,299
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Agree 100%!

Harrit and his group separated out their chips of interest using the magnet and red/gray layer criteria. They then tested these separated chips and deliberately decided to publish ONLY the results that supported their preconceived notions of demolition and thermite.

Furthermore, they DID NOT perform all tests in the paper on any single chip, but instead performed a few (in some cases, just one test) random tests per chip, and then applied these single chip test results as a whole to the entire pile of chips separated per above. With some clever writing, this gives the impression that all the chips they separated were some form of thermite.

This is why certain folks here in this forum who support the thermite and demolition nonsense have never come up with a concrete list of tests from Harrit's paper that anyone could use to positively identify a thermitic chip out of the dust.

A perfect example of this is the chip (single) used in the paper that had the resitivity test done on it. That chip is not shown to have been tested any other way, yet that resistivity test result is deceptively used to decieve the reader to think that it applies to ALL of the magnetically attracted red/gray chips of interest and that ALL chips studied in the paper had that test performed on it. This is why the resistivity test was picked out by some to be an important test in determining a thermtic chip even though it was performed on only one chip in according to Harrit's paper.

For the reasons stated above, this is why both Harrit and Jones refused to answer my email questions asking if they found any chips in their separated pile that were NOT thermitic or if they performed all tests in the paper on every chip.

They balked at both questions.
That is the same method that he.used in
The microspheres debate.

Convince the ignorant that all micro spheres
Are of thermitic origin.

Remember he has to prove malace and intent
He will want people believing that all his
Chips are energetic not just a few.

He is on a witch hunt.and calling it science.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2014, 10:47 PM   #1708
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 34,105
The next time someone says Jones' paper was published in a "peer reviewed journal", show them this.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/725920...fic-paper-scam

Quote:
The paper above, titled "Get me off your *********** mailing list," has been accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology.

Let us explain.

The journal, despite its distinguished name, is a predatory open-access journal, as noted by io9. These sorts of low-quality journals spam thousands of scientists, offering to publish their work for a fee.

In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph
Click for the lulz.
__________________
The Australasian Skeptics Forum.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2014, 10:56 PM   #1709
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 34,105
And did anyone notice that the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (where Jones was published) is now defunct?

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/

"The Open Chemical Physics Journal (Discontinued Title)"

(ETA: oops, I see that was back in 2011)
__________________
The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

Last edited by Orphia Nay; 21st November 2014 at 10:58 PM.
Orphia Nay 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 November 2014, 02:31 AM   #1710
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,295
Orphia,

1. Bentham Publishers may be in the same class of "predatory" open access journals as the one that accepted the "get me off your splendid mailing list" paper, but it isn't the same publisher!

2. "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" and Betham sure had no proper peer-review process - but you can't claim the Harrit paper wasn't peer-reviewed. I actually read the review by David Griscom, it was 12 pages long and had lots of brief comments, many of them concerning figures and images that didn't make it into the final paper, so the Harrit team apparently did pay heed to some of Griscom's hints. Griscom claims (I asked him directly via e-mail) he doesn't know who chose him to be peer-reviewer, and I had the impression from his responses that he was communicating with someone on the publisher's side. The problem of course is the choice of Griscom - "Chemical Physics" doesn't seem to be his main field, he is more into geology. He had previously published at Steven Jones's own "journal" and is a truther. So Griscom really is a "peer" - and wasn't anonymous to the authors, and therein lies the problem.

3. Yes, I had noticed that the journal is discontinued - a strange thing indeed!
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 November 2014, 06:24 AM   #1711
Crazy Chainsaw
Graduate Poster
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,299
Oystein
I just tested nano thermites with ceramic binder,
and organic binder.
Anything with a carbon based binder
Will not work if Finely divided and ignited in air.

The resulting carbon dust explosion ignites prior
To the nanothermites.
Below the oxidation ignition temperature
Of the nano thermites.
True nano thermites with inorganic binder
Are almost ten time more energetic when the material
Is used to heat a gas generating compound.
Fe 3O4 plasma vaporized works best as the oxidant.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 November 2014, 12:07 PM   #1712
chrismohr
Graduate Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,846
A few years ago I collected $1000 and got an excellent but nonpublished study of the red-grey chips from Jim Millette. Gosh, if someone had $150 or so, they could put out an excellent peer-reviewed paper reviewing the Harrit/Jones paper point by point, summarizing experiments done by Ivan, Crazy Chainsaw, Jim Millette and Dave Thomas, to name a few. Throw in some of Oystein and Sunstealer's analyses. It would need to be well-written, not one of those bizarre cancer-treatments-from-Mars type papers. Preferably by a chemist. Anyone want to give it a try? We'd want to be sure it is as peer reviewed as the Harrit/Jones paper. For example, Dave Thomas could co-write it with a chemist and Oystein could peer review it. I'd do it myself but I'm pretty broke these days!
__________________
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » 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 11:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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