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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 25th June 2012, 07:21 AM   #401
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
When considering the contents of the red chip surface contamination, all the materials that previously existed in the WTC are open to consideration.

When considering the content of the 'cleaned' red chips, testing has shown that
primer paint is not a valid consideration.

MM
In this case, I will respond to you.

Although the surface contamination of chips is apparently a serious matter, in the discussion of both Millette's and Harrit's results, not "all the materials are open to consideration".

Take e.g. just paints. By design, they must be tough/ductile/slightly flexible (must have proper mechanical properties) and therefore their layers should be disintegrated mostly to comparatively large pieces during collapses, not to some extremely fine dust. They should form pieces e.g. like these red-gray chips we all know

Therefore, Harrit's idea that MEK chip was contaminated somehow with the super-fine dust of Tnemec (or other paint) is not plausible. At least to me

OK., MEK chip could be hypothetically contaminated with some comparatively larger Tnemec particles, but we do not see any visual proof of it - chip looked homogeneous before swelling/soaking.
Moreover (once again): how this nanothermite chip (according to you) might be contaminated just with the Tnemec paint? We can exclude the possibility that these materials, comparatively rare in WTC, can "meet each other" by accident; and only remaining possibility is that nanothermite was somehow applied directly on the Tnemec primer layers on WTC perimeter columns. The reason why anybody should bother with painting of thin nanothermite layer over Tnemec primer layer remains unknown. At least to me

In this context, I'd like to remind "our" truther Poseidon, who has contributed in Oystein's blog. He is educated in the materials matter and clever, he basically accepted our paint theory, but just because of high Al peak in the Fig. 17 (Bentham paper), he came with a brand new hypothesis: nanothermite was not inside the red MEK chip, but outside (as a contaminant).

In fact, there is no reason to consider both nanothermite/on/paint and paint/on/nanothermite "hypotheses". All we know can be reasonably explained using the obvious hypothesis that red chips are just paint chips contaminated with expected stuffs like fine powders of gypsum and concrete

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 25th June 2012 at 07:45 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2012, 08:02 AM   #402
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...Does any primer paint to your knowledge?"
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
"Any primer paint that contains iron oxide as a pigment will leave iron-rich microspheres in its residue when ignited."
Any?

You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.



Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2012, 09:43 AM   #403
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

Couple of questions:
  • What colors do you see on all the chip before ignition?
  • How do you explain these colors?
  • What colors do you see on this chip after ignition?
  • How do you explain these colors?
  • What has changed chemically during ignition (which reaction took place)?
  • Does the reaction somehow have a bearing on your explanation of the colors?


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?
This question is very stupid.

Here is a little experiment that you can do at home:
  1. Light a candle. Let it burn for minute or two till a little pool of molten candle wax has formed around the bottom of the wick.
  2. Cut a little strip of aluminium wrap.
  3. Hold it with a metal wrench and quickly dip it into the molten wax and pull out. This will cover the aluminium (typically a mil / 25 micrometers, or less, thick) with a very thin layer of wax. Let cool for a moment.
  4. Now hold that wax-cover Al-strip over the burning candle - maybe a cm / 5/16" above the tip of the flame
  5. Observe, and tell us what happens!
  6. Now dip the metal wrench itself into the hot wax and let cool
  7. Hold the wax-covered wrench over the flame as before
  8. Observe, and describe what happens now!
I just did that. In the first case, the wax burst into a big flame after one or 2 seconds, and burned out very quickly. In the second case, the wax just melted, but never ignited.

[ETA]I filmed myself the second time. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33llq2S4lE (my first ever YouTube upload Nevermind the speech - I sound a little drunk I think, but it's because I forgot to prepare mentally, my spoken English is rusty and always needs a minute or so to wake up )[/ETA]

Can you explain the differences in observation?

For that matter, why can you light a candle only at the wick, not at the shaft?




Now try to transfer the results of this little experiment to paint on structural steel / paint on 1-mil-thin rust chips



(There is of course a second reason why flammable paint is no problem: Paint is extremely thin compared to the steel it's painted on, it could never pose a hazard. It would warm the steel by a few degrees, max)

Last edited by Oystein; 25th June 2012 at 10:41 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 25th June 2012, 03:23 PM   #404
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7...tedredchip.png

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?
"
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Couple of questions:
  • What colors do you see on all the chip before ignition?
  • How do you explain these colors?
  • What colors do you see on this chip after ignition?
  • How do you explain these colors?
  • What has changed chemically during ignition (which reaction took place)?
  • Does the reaction somehow have a bearing on your explanation of the colors?
"
????

I made no remarks about any colors.

Are you feeling okay?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"...You do know that the red chips were igniting around 430C and that the samples of Tnemec steel primer paint remained chemically stable even at a temperature of 800C.

When the Tnemec steel primer paint (contains iron oxide as a pigment) was burned in a flame, the scientists found ash as expected. They did not find your iron-rich microspheres.

When the red chips ignited in the DSC at 430C, it was not the same story.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7...tedredchip.png

Whether it be Tnemec or the infamous LaClede steel primer paint, it remains to be answered; why would anyone use a primer paint that could be ignited by a match, cigarette lighter, a spark, a small fire etc.?

And how would such a volatile paint ever get regulatory approval?
"
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"This question is very stupid.

Here is a little experiment that you can do at home:

....(There is of course a second reason why flammable paint is no problem: Paint is extremely thin compared to the steel it's painted on, it could never pose a hazard. It would warm the steel by a few degrees, max)
"
We are not talking about 'structural steel wax candles'.

The points are;

- the heat test results provide a useful reference guide for what to expect from the structural steel primer paint used at the time of the WTC construction.

- the NIST, as well as the Bentham scientists, heat-tested the most common steel primer paint formulation used in the WTC, and it tolerated 800C without igniting.

- no approval agency is likely to pass a structural steel primer paint which would have self-destructed and therefore failed the NIST test at 430C

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2012, 09:22 PM   #405
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
????
I made no remarks about any colors.
Are you feeling okay?
You don't understand, do you?
I'll give you a hint:
The red layer of the red-gray chips is red before and after heating.
The gray layer is dark gray before and after heating.
The red layer is red because it contains iron oxide in 100 nm pigments
The gray is dark grey because it consists of iron oxides, but not pigments
They don't change color because the iron oxide doesn't react. In particular, the iron oxide in the red layer does not react

The spheroid bulb has formed from the inert gray layer, not as a result of a thermite reaction, which didn't take place.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
We are not talking about 'structural steel wax candles'.

The points are;

- the heat test results provide a useful reference guide for what to expect from the structural steel primer paint used at the time of the WTC construction.
I am sure we have been through this many times before. Why do you lie here? You know damned well there wasn't just "the" structural steel (Tnemec).

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
- the NIST, as well as the Bentham scientists, heat-tested the most common steel primer paint formulation used in the WTC, and it tolerated 800C without igniting.
Can you prove this claim that Tnemec was "the most common steel primer formulation used in the WTC"? Or did you just invent that? LaClede may very well have been more common (i.e. painted on a larger surface)

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2109
Tnemec is only known to have been painted on the perimeter columns. The total surface area of the perimeter columns is smaller than the total area of the LaCLede floor joists.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
- no approval agency is likely to pass a structural steel primer paint which would have self-destructed and therefore failed the NIST test at 430C
Which "approval agency" would get to approve structural steel primer paints, and can you show that their criteria include performance when heated?
Can you explain why that would be important (to keep the anti-corrosion coat intact after the steel heated to 430°C)? I'd be willing to bet serious money again that you cannot back up these claims at all
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 26th June 2012, 04:12 AM   #406
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Back to topic:

At 911Blogger they had silenced those who read the Millette interim report correctly and were critical about the handwaving, lies and ignorance with which it wa met by AE911T and other 911Bloggers.

Now a poster who I haven't seen before has managed to pass the censors - in a blog about sone Jonathan Cole video:

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-2...comment-256939
Originally Posted by Wildbear
Needs updating

A good program, but it needs some editing to bring it up to date. Specifically, the study conducted by Dr. James Millette makes it appear unlikely that the red-gray chips are nanothermite, or any other thermitic material. Media referencing nanothermite and/or the red-gray chips, as is the case with this video, should be edited to remove these assertions or withdrawn from public view, since it can be used to cast doubt upon the credibility of those seeking the truth about 9//11.

Reference: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=231314
According to Millette, the chips do not contain elemental aluminum, which would be an expected component if the chips are thermitic. Also according to Millette, the chips contain materials which match known components in paints.
Even a link to JREF

Obviously, this criticism also applies to the big "Experts Speak Out" "movie" with which Gage is currently touring the USA.
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 26th June 2012, 06:11 AM   #407
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Back to topic:

At 911Blogger they had silenced those who read the Millette interim report correctly and were critical about the handwaving, lies and ignorance with which it wa met by AE911T and other 911Bloggers.

Now a poster who I haven't seen before has managed to pass the censors - in a blog about sone Jonathan Cole video:

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-06-2...comment-256939

Btw, John Michael P. Talboo added this comment to the article of ScootleRoyale:

"I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example)."



Even a link to JREF

Obviously, this criticism also applies to the big "Experts Speak Out" "movie" with which Gage is currently touring the USA.
Oystein: This morning, I noticed the new article Scootle Not Bound, Just Lazy.... in ScrewLooseChange blog.

I would say that even truther snug.bug, who addressed really disgusting offenses as for your person soon after the first announcement of Jim Millette's results, is now being calmer and is somehow able to discuss. At least these days. His main point now: "Goystein, if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along... etc." Could be a sign that even snug.bug is not so sure how it is with all this nanohermite in WTC

Sadly, most of other "debates" on ScrewLooseChange seem to be oriented only to ad-hominem attacks, both from the side of truthers and debunkers; and are seldom factual or bringing anything new...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th June 2012 at 06:32 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 06:28 AM   #408
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Btw, John Michael P. Talboo added this comment to the article of ScootleRoyale:

"I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example)."
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 06:33 AM   #409
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
18 of 96 minutes is 19% - 8 times as much as the absolute max. Al-content of the red chip layers. If 19% isn't significant, how could they ever have believed that there was significant elemental Al anywhere??

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 26th June 2012, 06:56 AM   #410
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
His main point now: "Goystein, if you knew anything about the truth movement you'd know that a lot of people have been skeptical of the Jones gang all along... etc."
Yes, as I recall, Judy Woods is one of those skeptics . Trading one kind of crazy for another is neither critical nor sound thinking.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:24 PM   #411
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
In that blogger post Oystein mentions, there's a video I haven't seen before by Jonathan Cole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h_oEs33VD5A
Around 9+ minutes into it, Cole quotes a paper that talks about how thermitic materials can be used to design a hush-a-boom demolition. Anyone know more about this? It's also linked in one of my debating points on chrismohr911.com. I am certainly willing to acknowledge this is possible if true, as I have been agreeing with the debunker consensus that explosions MUST be loud to do their work.
__________________
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 26th June 2012, 09:05 PM   #412
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
In that blogger post Oystein mentions, there's a video I haven't seen before by Jonathan Cole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=h_oEs33VD5A
Around 9+ minutes into it, Cole quotes a paper that talks about how thermitic materials can be used to design a hush-a-boom demolition. Anyone know more about this? It's also linked in one of my debating points on chrismohr911.com. I am certainly willing to acknowledge this is possible if true, as I have been agreeing with the debunker consensus that explosions MUST be loud to do their work.
What I read in the video at 9+ minutes are two patent numbers.

One patent should be 5,532,499, Murakami, July 1996. I have not found any such patent by googling. US patent with this number deals with "Beam spot position detector having a detector moving mechanism". Perhaps Cole means a Japanese patent, not available.

The second patent should be 4,996,992, from 1991. Such US patent exists, but deals with "Automatic blood pressure measurement in hyperbaric chamber".

Therefore I'm confused

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th June 2012 at 09:14 PM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 09:11 PM   #413
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
What I read in the video at 9+ minutes are two patent numbers.

One patent should be 5,532,499, Murakami, July 1996. I have not found any such patent by googling. US patent with this number deals with "Beam spot position detector having a detector moving mechanism". Perhaps Cole means a Japanese patent, not available.

The second patent should be 4,996,992, from 1991. Such US patent exists, but deals with "Automatic blood pressure measurement in hyperbaric chamber".

Therefore I'm confused
Things keep getting curiouser and curiouser. Does anyone know if this quote about thermitic materials having potential hush-a-boom qualities is real?
__________________
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 26th June 2012, 09:21 PM   #414
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chrismohr: Sorry, I put a wrong number in the first case. A patent 5532449 deals with Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete. So this should be relevant, except that WTC were not concrete buildings. I will read the text...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th June 2012 at 09:24 PM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 09:49 PM   #415
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chrismohr: As I understand, cited patent (here is an original patent with Figures) describes a quite complex system for delivering thermite powder continuously into the surface of concrete where plasma torch creates high temperature arc, igniting the incoming thermite, or so.

According to Figures, system is usable only for the horizontal concrete surfaces. And without gradual supply of thermite (when all thermite would be already put on the concrete), the plasma arc would simply ignite all thermite at once, causing usual spectacular and quite loud thermite "firework".

Probably such system can cut/damage steel as well as concrete, who knows. I do not care. My business here are paints, not thermites

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 26th June 2012 at 10:37 PM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2012, 04:11 AM   #416
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Chrismohr: Aha! Whereas I made a mistake in the number of the first patent, J. Cole himself made mistake in the number of the second patent

Instead of 4,996,992 should be 4,996,922.

This patent, named Low profile thermite igniter is e.g. here:

As for me, I can't see the images, since I don't have necessary plugin (here in my work).
It seems that patent describes a kind of thermite "torch" capable of orienting of the heat to the substrate, I'm too lazy to read it.

Perhaps tens of similar patents exist, but I do not care at all
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2012, 06:15 AM   #417
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Btw, as for thermite cutting steel, about two weeks ago I found older long debate "Thermite Cuts Steel Columns, Reproduces Several WTC Anomalies, National Geographic Debunked" in the "white nationalists" and antisemitic website Stormfront.

I was quite amused by responses of the guy nicked LionAxe I do not know him, but his answers/explanations in the "battle" with several antisemitic truthers were simply clever and mostly well-based, although he claims somewhere that he has "no academic degree".
Notably, so called "Pittsburgh paint" is mentioned somewhere in this thread, which might be perhaps the very first notion about "our" Laclede paint (probably manufactured by Pittsburgh Plate and Glass Company), but my search did not found anything specific.
I would not agree with all the things LionAxe wrote, but it was still a quite good reading

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 27th June 2012 at 06:37 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2012, 05:32 AM   #418
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
ChrisMohr: What I read now in Experts Speak Out Tour 2012 Blog:

"Chris Mohr, one of the most outspoken opponents of 9/11 Truth, also attended the event. Richard Gage had this to say about their meeting:

We invited him to share his thoughts about the evidence that had just been presented by the experts. He was quite polite, as usual, regarding his disagreement with us. He noted that Jim Millette's study of the WTC dust samples was going to continue with a DSC (heater) experiment to determine what happens when the red-gray chips are heated to over 430° centigrade. We reminded Chris to also make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles, which an international team of scientists originally determined by scanning electron microscope analysis to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint!"


Interesting news to me, I have not known that you attended this truther session Have these truthers read Jim Millette's preliminary report? If yes, why they try to remind you (or Jim Millette) "to make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles"? Iron oxide particles are shown in the report (e.g. in Fig. 18 in detail) and they have sizes around 200 nm and are perhaps about 50 nm "thick".

Well, they seem to be generally slightly larger than in Fig. 8 in Bentham paper, but they are still clearly nanosized. Like many other iron oxide pigments used in paints for decades or even centuries

And is it right that Jim Millette plans to do some experiments with heating of chips in DSC?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 28th June 2012 at 05:42 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2012, 01:15 PM   #419
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
The conversation I remember with Richard Gage that night was very different. Firstly, I said that Millette is NOT doing the DSC test but that someone else is trying to get one going (a 9/11 Truth guy I'm working with). The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.

As for the iron-rich spheres, I said publicly that Millette will be doing more research on them. In a private conversation Gage told me that the microspheres were about 100 atoms across and Millette should look into this.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 28th June 2012 at 01:19 PM. Reason: tech problems
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 June 2012, 01:35 PM   #420
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,729
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.
The problem really is a DSC is in no way reasonably way to identify an un-known compound. Harrit et. al chose this method because they could fool the target audience.

As you noticed by the lack of attention in the relevant fields (and only attention in the conspiracy market), they have succeeded.

No competent chemist could read their "paper" and come up with the same results. I have tested this with two PhD level chemists, both say their data does not support their results.

I challenge any "truther" to submit the Harrit et al paper for any peer review. It will fail, period, end of story.
__________________
"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 June 2012, 12:50 AM   #421
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The conversation I remember with Richard Gage that night was very different. Firstly, I said that Millette is NOT doing the DSC test but that someone else is trying to get one going (a 9/11 Truth guy I'm working with). The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.

As for the iron-rich spheres, I said publicly that Millette will be doing more research on them. In a private conversation Gage told me that the microspheres were about 100 atoms across and Millette should look into this.
The persistent obsession of Gage and his fellows with anything "nano" is really silly and quite boring. WTC dust (or burned red chips) can contain even some ultra-fine/nanosized iron-rich spheres. And what?
They can be zillions of nano-things in any ash/dust after any fire/burning, including e.g. irregular carbon nanotubes present in WTC dust, currently "accused" to be another evidence of nanothermite CD by nano-chemist (!) Niels Harrit.

But you know it, we know it, there is no need to repeat it again

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 29th June 2012 at 01:27 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2012, 01:51 AM   #422
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The conversation I remember with Richard Gage that night was very different. Firstly, I said that Millette is NOT doing the DSC test but that someone else is trying to get one going (a 9/11 Truth guy I'm working with). The problem, I said publicly, is that when I tried to find someone to do the test, he said that if there is any chance of there being thermite, it would melt through the crucible he has so he refused.
Will you write to him and ask him to correct his blog on that count?

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
As for the iron-rich spheres, I said publicly that Millette will be doing more research on them. In a private conversation Gage told me that the microspheres were about 100 atoms across and Millette should look into this.
Careful, Chris!
Gage, in his blog, talks about the "size of the iron oxide particles ... to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint" - that is clearly refering to pigments before heating, not spheres after ignition!

Gage is of course wrong! From the Abstract of the Harrit paper:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide
On page 12. talking about iron oxide grains:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and have a faceted appearance.
The text goes on to talk about the other pigment, which we know is kaolin:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al
These bright particles are seen intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to about 1 micron across.
(In fact, the kaolin plates are typically 1 micron across, but up to 2.5 or 3 microns).

Obviously, Gage mixes up the thickness of the Al-"rich" plates with the size of the iron oxide grains.

Because he mixes these two things up, his assertion that this is a "feature not present in paint": Of course, 100 nm grains of iron oxide are typical for an orange-red primer paint, and 40 nm plate thickness is normal for kaolin.

Perhaps you can ask him to correct those errors as well.
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 June 2012, 09:17 AM   #423
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Gage, in his blog, talks about the "size of the iron oxide particles ... to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint" - that is clearly refering to pigments before heating, not spheres after ignition!

Gage is of course wrong! ...
Please cite a direct link to that quote you edited?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2012, 12:22 PM   #424
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
The persistent obsession of Gage and his fellows with anything "nano" is really silly and quite boring. WTC dust (or burned red chips) can contain even some ultra-fine/nanosized iron-rich spheres. And what?
They can be zillions of nano-things in any ash/dust after any fire/burning, including e.g. irregular carbon nanotubes present in WTC dust, currently "accused" to be another evidence of nanothermite CD by nano-chemist (!) Niels Harrit.

But you know it, we know it, there is no need to repeat it again
Grasping at nano-straws.
__________________
"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 June 2012, 02:37 PM   #425
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Please cite a direct link to that quote you edited?

MM
http://www2.ae911truth.org/events/es...ver&cityname2=

Full quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Shure
Chris Mohr, one of the most outspoken opponents of 9/11 Truth, also attended the event. Richard Gage had this to say about their meeting:
We invited him to share his thoughts about the evidence that had just been presented by the experts. He was quite polite, as usual, regarding his disagreement with us. He noted that Jim Millette's study of the WTC dust samples was going to continue with a DSC (heater) experiment to determine what happens when the red-gray chips are heated to over 430° centigrade. We reminded Chris to also make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles, which an international team of scientists originally determined by scanning electron microscope analysis to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint!
Do you see now how Richard Gage has erred?
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 June 2012, 05:32 PM   #426
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
The persistent obsession of Gage and his fellows with anything "nano" is really silly and quite boring. WTC dust (or burned red chips) can contain even some ultra-fine/nanosized iron-rich spheres. And what?
They can be zillions of nano-things in any ash/dust after any fire/burning, including e.g. irregular carbon nanotubes present in WTC dust, currently "accused" to be another evidence of nanothermite CD by nano-chemist (!) Niels Harrit.

But you know it, we know it, there is no need to repeat it again
It's what you see with blinders on, even nano-blinders.

something...something...nanobrains

Last edited by OCaptain; 29th June 2012 at 05:34 PM.
OCaptain 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 June 2012, 05:33 PM   #427
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Please cite a direct link to that quote you edited?

MM
And this matters to you how?
OCaptain 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 June 2012, 06:25 PM   #428
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Do the CT loons not know you can make iron "micro-nano-spheres" with steel wool and a match?
Robrob 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 June 2012, 06:35 PM   #429
OCaptain
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,120
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Do the CT loons not know you can make iron "micro-nano-spheres" with steel wool and a match?
No, we know that's not true. You can't make nano anywhere outside of a secret gubmint lab!
OCaptain 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 30th June 2012, 05:52 AM   #430
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Will you write to him and ask him to correct his blog on that count?


Careful, Chris!
Gage, in his blog, talks about the "size of the iron oxide particles ... to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint" - that is clearly refering to pigments before heating, not spheres after ignition!

Gage is of course wrong! From the Abstract of the Harrit paper:

On page 12. talking about iron oxide grains:

The text goes on to talk about the other pigment, which we know is kaolin:

(In fact, the kaolin plates are typically 1 micron across, but up to 2.5 or 3 microns).

Obviously, Gage mixes up the thickness of the Al-"rich" plates with the size of the iron oxide grains.

Because he mixes these two things up, his assertion that this is a "feature not present in paint": Of course, 100 nm grains of iron oxide are typical for an orange-red primer paint, and 40 nm plate thickness is normal for kaolin.

Perhaps you can ask him to correct those errors as well.
Hi Oystein,

Right now I'm working hard on the chrismohr911.com site and don't have a lot of time, but I did forward your post to Richard and discovered I misinterpreted what he said:

"Thanks! One point of correction. I never said that the iron microspheres are 40 or 100 nanometers. They range from just under too small to be scene with the naked eye - up to to 1/10th of an inch.

"I may have indeed mistakenly called the iron oxide particles 40nm across though. They were 100. The Alum platelets were 40.

"Richard"
__________________
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 30th June 2012, 01:23 PM   #431
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi Oystein,

Right now I'm working hard on the chrismohr911.com site and don't have a lot of time, but I did forward your post to Richard and discovered I misinterpreted what he said:

"Thanks! One point of correction. I never said that the iron microspheres are 40 or 100 nanometers. They range from just under too small to be scene with the naked eye - up to to 1/10th of an inch.

"I may have indeed mistakenly called the iron oxide particles 40nm across though. They were 100. The Alum platelets were 40.

"Richard"
Chris,

a suggested reply to Gage:

Richard,

it seems that we both mixed up a few things: I thought you meant microspheres post-ignition when you talked about iron oxide grains pre-ignition, and you mixed up the thickness of those plateles, 40 nm, with the size of the iron oxide grains, 100 nm.

In your travel blog, you are quoted as saying "We reminded Chris to also make sure that the study includes an analysis of the actual size of the iron oxide particles, which an international team of scientists originally determined by scanning electron microscope analysis to be just 40 nanometers across – a feature not present in paint!"[1]

This statement is not corrcet on two counts:
1. You mixed up the sizes - that happens
2. Your claim that iron oxide grains of that size are not present in paint. If you actually mean "100 nm", this claim is false: Iron oxide pigments are in fact very commonly found in just that grain size in red paints.

May I please advise you to verify this, because it is important to understand that indeed these iron oxide grains have the usual size for orange-red paint pigments? You verify this in at least two easy ways:
  1. Ask the members of that international team of scientists to show you the 12-page peer-review of their paper by David Griscom. Griscom pointed out that the red layer of the red-gray chips is red because the very grain size of 100 nm makes iron oxide red; he advises Harrit and his co-authors that this happens to be the normal pigment size of iron oxide in red paints! It is interesting by the way that this advice from Griscom's was not heeded by Harrit e.al. in their final paper!
  2. Go to a science library and pick up any textbook on inorganic pigments[2]. You will learn there that 100 nm iron oxide pigments have been synthesized on industrial scales since at least the 1920: Processes like the Laux-process create hematite (Fe3O4) in high purity, which can easily be reduced to any particle size down to under 100 nm by milling. Furthermore: Iron oxide pigments must be about 100 - 150 nm to be red; in larger sizes they have darker hues, from darker red to purple and brown.

Richard, I think you should realize that every orange-red steel primer contains iron oxide pigments exactly the size they found them in the red-gray chips: 100 - 150 nm! It is decidedly not a high-tech product; instead, it is a cheap, industrial low-tech product!

In the same way, you can verify through freely available scientific publications[2][3] that Kaolin, an aluminium silicate clay, occurs naturally with a microstructure consisting of platelets several dozens of nanometers thin and typically 1-5 microns across - exactly like the plate-like particles in the red layer!

So it is not true that "the actual size of the iron oxide particles" (or the plate-like particles of kaolin clay with the tell-tale aluminium and silicon signal) are "a feature not present in paint!". The opposite is true:
  • Iron oxide grains of 100 nm are a common and cheap pigment of many red paints
  • Aluminium- and silicon-rich plates of around 1 microns diameter and 40 nanometers thickness are naturally occurring as clay mineral and a common and cheap ingredient of many paints
If you understand this, you understand more than this team of international scientists!


References:

[1] Fran Shure: Denver Report (Denver, CO 6/1/12 ). Published in the "Experts Speak Out Tour 2012 Blog" on Tue, Jun 19, 2012 1:00 pm PDT.
Online: http://www2.ae911truth.org/events/es...ver&cityname2=

[2] A suggested book: Buxbaum Gunter, Pfaff Gerhard: Industrial Inorganic Pigments, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, ISBN: 978-3-52760-403-6
A preview is available online at Google books: http://books.google.de/books?id=rC_n...page&q&f=false
Fig. 5.36, p. 262 and Fig. 5.38 on page 263 are instructive about pigment size

[3] For example: Murray, Haydn H.: Applied Clay Mineralogy; Occurrences, Processing and Application of Kaolins, Betonites, Palygorskite-Sepiolite, and Common Clays. Elsevier, 2007; ISNB: 978-0-444-51701-2
Available online at http://www.ukm.my/geologi/homepage%2...Mineralogy.pdf
Page 1: (Natural) clays are defined by a particle size (diameter, not thickness) of less than 4 microns, or even less than 2 microns (across).
Page 9: "the shape of kaolinite is pseudo-hexagonal plates and stacks (Fig. 6)."
Page 24, Fig. 16 shows that in kaolins from high quality natural deposits, such as are found in Georgia, 40% of the clay particles are 1 micron or less in diameter.
Page 40, Fig 28 (see below) shows a scanning electron micrograph of the soft Capim basin kaolin, with a scale marker of 2 µm. It can be determined from this image that many of the plates are only about 40-60 nm thin.
Page 85, Chapter 5 "KAOLIN APPLICATIONS": "Such characteristics ... make it a prime pigment and extender in paper coating and paints and other specialty applications."
Page 92: "About 600,000 tons annually are used worldwide as extender pigments in paint. The largest use is as a pigment extender in water-based interior latex paints. It is also used in oil-based exterior industrial primers. ... The particle size of these fine kaolins used in paint is about 98% less than 2 mm. Kaolin contributes to suspension, viscosity, and leveling of paints."


[4] Another good kaolin reference is
Pruett, Robert J. and Webb, Harold L.: Sampling and Analysis of KGa-1B well-crystalized Kaolin Source Clay. Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 41, No. 4, p. 514-519, 1993
Online: http://www.clays.org/journal/archive...1/41-4-514.pdf
Look at Fig 06 specifically to gauge the typical size of fine, natural kaolin clay particles:
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 1st July 2012, 08:32 AM   #432
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
It would be unexpected because no thermetic materials were there.
Listen closely to the next statement, and let it sink in:

Thermite as a demo method on 9-11 was simply INVENTED. IT WAS MADE UP ON THE SPOT BY A TOTAL IDIOT.
NoahFence 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 31st July 2012, 11:20 AM   #433
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Here is what they actually claimed in public communication to all their signers and other supporters:

http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/03/index.php



This is pretty clear, and has not been retracted. Yet, in "next month’s Blueprint newsletter", not a word about it.
Not sure which thread this belongs in, but:

The July 2012 "Blueprint" newsletter is out:
http://ae911truth.org/newsletter/2012/07/index.php

Since I first saw it two days ago, and it contains as the newest news item one from july 26th, it apparently was put together between july 26th and 29th.

However, I didn't get it in my mail yet! Has anyone else subscribed to this newsletter and recieved it? Or did they perhaps delete me from their list?
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 31st July 2012, 11:24 AM   #434
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It would be unexpected because no thermetic materials were there.
Listen closely to the next statement, and let it sink in:

Thermite as a demo method on 9-11 was simply INVENTED. IT WAS MADE UP ON THE SPOT BY A TOTAL IDIOT.
I remember when I first heard about truther claims. It was sold to me that Steven Jones was a "thermite expert". lol
Edx 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 August 2012, 09:08 AM   #435
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
There is a new mention on Dave Thomas' article on Jim Millette's report and other new WTC topics on 911 Scholars Forum.

There is also some debate, but I have no time to read it today.

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 29th August 2012 at 09:15 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2012, 09:16 AM   #436
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
how absorbant is the paper of this report I am running out of tissue
Dcdrac 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 August 2012, 11:51 AM   #437
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Ivan, that's just a dumped mention.

Author is Chuck Boldwyn. Search his name on this forum!
He once "calculated" that the 94 floors below the impact zone are strong enough to carry >9000 floors above them. Yes. More than ninethousand floors. A tower more than 30 kilometers high. No kidding.
And now he says "IMO, all destructions comes from incendiaries, high-explosive directed shape charges, and finally micro nukes or mini nukes as directed shape charges." and "If Steve Jones was to calculate the energy requirements, maybe he can be persuaded to visit nukes, unless he has a pre-ordained agenda...".

LOL
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 August 2012, 11:56 AM   #438
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It would be unexpected because no thermetic materials were there.
Listen closely to the next statement, and let it sink in:

Thermite as a demo method on 9-11 was simply INVENTED. IT WAS MADE UP ON THE SPOT BY A TOTAL IDIOT.
Yea, thermite only started being claimed because of Steven Jones and his fake pictures he believed showed glowing molten steel and the reports of melted metal and steel as if these were a strange and suspicious when its perfectly ordinary to hear people report such things in fires.
Edx 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 30th August 2012, 03:50 AM   #439
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
I may have missed a few posts here, but are there any news on the Millette Study being peer reviewed and published?
Steen Svanholm 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 30th August 2012, 03:59 AM   #440
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Nope, Steen. The last thing was that he did a presentation titled "Thermite at the WTC?" at the McCrone Institute's microscopy conference around july 11th. Since then it seems he has put it on hold, citing higher priorities in his schedule.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.