Merged: Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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.

[Redwood]

Quote:

(Sunstealer)MM - Has Harrit or any other author reported the FTIR results? yes/no

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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.

[BasqueArch]

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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.

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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.

[Sunstealer]

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.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

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.

[LashL]

Please, folks, stick to the topic of the thread. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By:LashL

[BenjaminTR]

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?

[Oystein]

Benjamin,
I will address your points in reverse order:

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR

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

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

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

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

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?

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by BenjaminTR

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

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

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.

[BenjaminTR]

Thanks, Oystein and Sunstealer. That helps.