Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"So a possible tiny blip for manganese has now blossomed into a clear hump in the data.

And you have the mendacity to talk about faulty data interpretation and fantasy."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"As usual, you fail to think scientifically.

1. There is a clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese, in fig. 6 a, b, and d.
   MM, please answer this, clearly and unambiguously: Do you clearly see a hump in the data at 5.9 keV in fig. 6 a, b, and d? YES or NO? Is 5.9 keV the K-Alpha-level of manganese? YES or NO?
2. Is "There is possibly some manganese in the sample" a possible interpretation of this clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese? YES or NO?

These two questions are aimed at helping you understand the difference between data and interpretation. Maybe you will then understand why a "clear hump in the data translates only to a possible interpretation of the hump as presence of manganese.

ETA: Here are cropped portions of 6a and 6d, including the aforementioned humps. Who can see them?

"

formatting improvements are mine

Oh Gawd you've got your crayons out again.

Please explain what you meant when you described your proof of manganese as a "possible tiny blip?

Being tiny, it can easily be noise. Sure looks like noise to me.

Being described as "possible" reveals your uncertainty.

Rather than acknowledge the meaning of what you yourself described as uncertain, you upgrade it's status from a possible tiny blip for manganese to a clear hump for manganese.

Is that your idea of one small step for nano-thermite and one large step for primer paint?

One wonders how much you are willing to adjust your interpretation of Dr. Harrit's excellent data to suit your own ego-driven purposes?

MM

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

One wonders how much you are willing to adjust your interpretation of Dr. Harrit's excellent data to suit your own ego-driven purposes?

MM

Same could be asked for why Harrit called these chips "therm?te".

Funny, no one outside his circle of friends agrees with his findings.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by DGM

Holy crap!!!!!!!! The steel was rusting and was contaminated with organic compounds. Never see that happen in nature.

(he's actually saying, he has no idea how paint would look on rusted metal)

Still trying to understand all the obsession with rusted re-bar and melted aluminum wiring...

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

... you upgrade it's status from a possible tiny blip for manganese to a clear hump for manganese ...

Big fat LIE.
I knew I'd get you in no time. Here is what I wrote - original formatting, not the disingeneous manipulation that you made to help you dodge my questions and obfuscate my meaning:

Originally Posted by Oystein

As usual, you fail to think scientifically.

1. There is a clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese, in fig. 6 a, b, and d.
   MM, please answer this, clearly and unambiguously: Do you clearly see a hump in the data at 5.9 keV in fig. 6 a, b, and d? YES or NO? Is 5.9 keV the K-Alpha-level of manganese? YES or NO?
2. Is "There is possibly some manganese in the sample" a possible interpretation of this clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese? YES or NO?

These two questions are aimed at helping you understand the difference between data and interpretation. Maybe you will then understand why a clear hump in the data translates only to a possible interpretation of the hump as presence of manganese.



ETA: Here are cropped portions of 6a and 6d, including the aforementioned humps. Who can see them?
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...anganese_a.jpg
http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...anganese_d.jpg

To work out where you introduce a BIG FAT LIE, here is you misrepresenting what I qualified with possible:

Originally Posted by Miragememories

... you upgrade it's status from a possible tiny blip for manganese to a clear hump for manganese ...

Here is what I actually qualified with "possible":

Originally Posted by Oystein

..."There is possibly some manganese in the sample" [is] a possible interpretation of this clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese...

I made it perfectly clear that you MUST NOT confuse the data and its interpretation.
Yet that is exactly what you went on to repeat, after you have been schooled on the difference.

Since you went to such great length to avoid acknowledging the crucial difference between data and interpretation, I reject the null hypothesis that you are really just very stupid to commit this simple error over and over again, and am left with the conclusion that you are consciously lying.


And everybody can see what you did there.


How very embarrassing, MM.



Back to ignore.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Being tiny, it can easily be noise. Sure looks like noise to me.

Being described as "possible" reveals your uncertainty.

Rather than acknowledge the meaning of what you yourself described as uncertain, you upgrade it's status from a possible tiny blip for manganese to a clear hump for manganese.

Is that your idea of one small step for nano-thermite and one large step for primer paint?

One wonders how much you are willing to adjust your interpretation of Dr. Harrit's excellent data to suit your own ego-driven purposes?

MM

You're adorable! Please complete this sentence, "Hi, I'm MirageMemories, I've been working in the field of X-ray microanalysis for ________ years, and I've published _______ first author papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic of microanalysis."

Here it is for me: Hi, I'm The Almond, I've been working in the field of X-ray microanalysis for 10 years, and I've published 6 first author papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the topic of microanalysis.

It's manganese, and Oystein is right. Wherever you see iron, you almost always see a small amount of manganese. The ions are almost exactly the same size, they have similar valance states, and they freely replace in each others matrices.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Big fat LIE.
I knew I'd get you in no time. Here is what I wrote - original formatting, not the disingeneous manipulation that you made to help you dodge my questions and obfuscate my meaning:



To work out where you introduce a BIG FAT LIE, here is you misrepresenting what I qualified with possible:

Here is what I actually qualified with "possible":


I made it perfectly clear that you MUST NOT confuse the data and its interpretation.
Yet that is exactly what you went on to repeat, after you have been schooled on the difference.

Since you went to such great length to avoid acknowledging the crucial difference between data and interpretation, I reject the null hypothesis that you are really just very stupid to commit this simple error over and over again, and am left with the conclusion that you are consciously lying.


And everybody can see what you did there.


How very embarrassing, MM.



Back to ignore.

Grasp at straws much?

MM

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

formatting improvements are mine

Oh Gawd you've got your crayons out again.

Please explain what you meant when you described your proof of manganese as a "possible tiny blip?

Is that your idea of one small step for nano-thermite and one large step for primer paint?

There are only two reasons for there to be any manganese at all, and it looks to me as though there is a very small amount of manganese present here.

Potassium permanganate is sometimes used as an initiator for thermite. Non of the data, as far as I can see, would indicate that there was enough potassium or manganese to indicate that there was a useful amount of potassium permanganate there.

There is a very small amount of manganese in structural steel. I am not a metalurgist, so I cannot give you figures on how much there should be there. Maybe someone else here can.

By any measure, the signal for manganese is there. It is a sharp spike in the supposed "noise" level and it is there in both samples.

Quote:

One wonders how much you are willing to adjust your interpretation of Dr. Harrit's excellent data to suit your own ego-driven purposes?

Harrit's work is damaged by Harrit's faulty thinking. He started from the supposition that the chips were something that should not have been there.

He seems to entertain the bone-headed idea that the grey layer is part of a thermitic device, and he ignores any indication that it may (far more likely) be just a part of the structural element onto which the red layer was painted.

The clowns could have built a better case for their idiotic theory had they found some chips they knew to be paint, either Tnemec or LaClede, and shown how these chips differ.

They have not done so. It seems rather clear to me that, since all their chips seem to be of pretrty much the same substance, save the one, that they did not find anything identifiable, at least to their tiny brains, as paint.

Here comes the steel-toed boot of reality, straight to their gonads.

There has to have been paint in the dust. That they have not mentioned having found paint chips anywhere tells me that they have not a clue among them what they are doing. Why did these fools not notice the absence of paint chips?

[Cuddles]

Derail split to here. Except for the bickering that was dumped to AAH. Keep it on topic, and keep it civil.

Posted By:Cuddles

[chrismohr]

Hi all, go to post #1257 here where I talk in detail about another upcoming test for thermitic material in the WTC dust: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...19#post7893219

[moorea34]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I had this question presented to Dr. Harrit and he clearly stated he contacted Tillotson about this point and was told that the DSC testing was done in an open air environment.

His statement can be found on YouTube during the Q&A at the end of his presentation at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto.

If you have contradictory evidence, we need something more than just your say so to make it believable.

MM

Very simple : you contact (like has done a friend) some authors of the Tillotson's paper, and you ask them if they used open air environment or ultra pure nitrogen

We will see who are the liars...

[grandmastershek]

Wrong thread

[Jonnyclueless]

If they had really used Nano-Termites then the WTC would have been covered with those huge yellow-blue circus tent things they put on houses when spraying.

[ProfJoey223]

This is no longer shocking or even that interesting. Anyone who has followed the truth movement has known this to be true for years. The real issue is how to begin the arrests, trials, and hangings of the neo-con scum that perpetrated this heinous crime.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

This is no longer shocking or even that interesting. Anyone who has followed the truth movement has known this to be true for years.

Ermm..NO! People with brains figured out from the get-go that it was paint.

Quote:

The real issue is how to begin the arrests, trials, and hangings of the neo-con scum that perpetrated this heinous crime.

Oh, I am sure that, were they hauled before an international tribunal, Bush the Lesser and his merry morons would go down for something, mostly related to the war in Iraq and the torture of prisoners, but introducing super-nanon-banano thermite or any of the MIHOP crap that shows up here into the evidence chain would just make the prosecution look stupid.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

... The real issue is how to begin the arrests, trials, and hangings of the neo-con scum that perpetrated this heinous crime.

Your delusions on 911, not on topic, have no chance of helping Basile. You want to murder neo-con scum, you have no evidence. How does this relate to the fantasy of nano-thermite?

[shure]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

"super-nanon-banano thermite"

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

This is no longer shocking or even that interesting. Anyone who has followed the truth movement has known this to be true for years. The real issue is how to begin the arrests, trials, and hangings of the neo-con scum that perpetrated this heinous crime.

A few months ago, a bunch of truthers pretended to have hearings, in Toronto.

I think the next step should be to pretend to arrest those neo-con perpetrators. Then you can pretend to try them for the crimes you pretend were committed based on the evidence you pretend to have. That should be sufficient to pretend to find them guilty and then pretend to hang them.

It won't be as satisfying as actually doing anything, but it's as much as your movement will ever be able to accomplish, so I see no reason to delay.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by ProfJoey223

This is no longer shocking or even that interesting. Anyone who has followed the truth movement has known this to be true for years. The real issue is how to begin the arrests, trials, and hangings of the neo-con scum that perpetrated this heinous crime.

No, that's the easy part. You simply begin by presenting your evidence.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

... super-nanon-banano thermite

.
Are you shirley you didn't mean nano nano bo bano banana fanna fo fano fee fi mo mano, nanothermi*te?

.

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

So, when do you expect it to appear in a peer-reviewed, respectable journal??

JO911S and Bentham are not peer-reviewed or respectable.

And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None. NIST wont even share the parameters they entered to create their WTC7 black box computer models (who ever heard of such a thing?) Despite whatever unrealistic tweaks they used (like removing the conduction of heat for example), they still could not get their model to mimic what actually occurred!

The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper. You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument) I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?

It would be on thing if there were one or two strange anomalies, but when you look at the whole issue and see so many different strands of evidence all pointing in the same direction, it becomes impossible to avoid the only logical conclusion: that explosives were involved.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by atavisms

And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None. NIST wont even share the parameters they entered to create their WTC7 black box computer models (who ever heard of such a thing?) Despite whatever unrealistic tweaks they used (like removing the conduction of heat for example), they still could not get their model to mimic what actually occurred!

You don't understand the models anyway, you can't use the input data, you don't do science. An engineer can model WTC7 without NIST data - why can't you? Big failure on this point, it means nothing except you are anti-science.

Originally Posted by atavisms

The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper. You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument) I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?

The Jones/Harrit paper is a joke. Jones made up thermite out of thin air, it is evidence of insanity at best. Jones thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti, and he made up thermite. He fooled you. In the paper, they prove it was not thermite. The heat released in their samples do not match thermite. oops

Jet fuel has over 10 times the heat energy of thermite! oops

Office fires on 911 were equal in heat energy to more than 2,100 TONS of thermite for each tower! No thermite required! You believe in fantasy lies made up by insane conspiracy theorists on 911.

Originally Posted by atavisms

It would be on thing if there were one or two strange anomalies, but when you look at the whole issue and see so many different strands of evidence all pointing in the same direction, it becomes impossible to avoid the only logical conclusion: that explosives were involved.

There are no anomalies on 911, only ignorance and lies on your part. You sure are gullible on 911 issues.
Can't wait for you to get to Flight 77 and 93, what crazy claims do you have on the other half of 911!?

How many tons of thermite was used? Got math, got physics, got some rational facts and evidence? no

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by atavisms

And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None.

Incorrect. A draft was published for review by everyone. Critiques were sent in by many, and worked into the final report.

Originally Posted by atavisms

...
The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Incorrect. It was reviewed by friends of Harrit and co. who are even ascknowledged as contributing to the paper. The Editor in Chief was not involved in the peer review process, didn't even know about it and that the paper was approved for publishing. She promptly stepped down, citring the very lack of proper peer review process as the reason.

Originally Posted by atavisms

You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument)

Incorrect. It is not in lieu of an argument but actally addressing the very argumentm, when YOUR (truthers') argument before ours is the FALSE claim that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It wasn't.

Originally Posted by atavisms

I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?

We have seen the paper. It doesn't warrant a published refutation. Everybody with half a brain and 2 years of chemistry in school should easily find several errors and shortcomnings upon first reading.

[ETA]
Actually, Marc Basile's work contains a good refutation of the claim that the chips are thermitic in nature:

Look closely: The red layer contains only around 1.5% by weight aluminium and around 2.2% iron. If you throw in some oxygene for a hypothetical perfectly stochiastic thermite mix, you find that the red layer contains at most 5% thermite by weight. This means that the energy density provided by the thermite is at most 5% of 3.9kJ/g, or <=195J/g. If you crunch numbers on heat capacity etc., you will find that this isn't even enough to warm the red material enough to keep a reaction going, let alone melt anything.
Thus, Basile proves the chips are nit active thermitic material.

If you don't understand what I told you in the previous paragraph, you are intellecually inequipped to participate in a discussion of the scientifc merits of Harrit e.al.
[/ETA]

However, I have a question for you, atavism: What will you do, when one or two articled are published in actual and respected peer-reviewed journals of the proper and relevant scientific proveniences that clearly find Harrot e.al. in error? Will you then accept that maybve there is something wrong with their findings?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by atavisms

And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None. NIST wont even share the parameters they entered to create their WTC7 black box computer models (who ever heard of such a thing?) Despite whatever unrealistic tweaks they used (like removing the conduction of heat for example), they still could not get their model to mimic what actually occurred!

The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper. You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument) I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?

It would be on thing if there were one or two strange anomalies, but when you look at the whole issue and see so many different strands of evidence all pointing in the same direction, it becomes impossible to avoid the only logical conclusion: that explosives were involved.

Did you realize that you wrote the highlighted portions in the same post?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Did you realize that you wrote the highlighted portions in the same post?

That's a truther technique called "Pre-Moving Goalposts". Now that I have a name for it, I'll look for more examples. I think it can be executed more skillfully than atavism just did.


It is in its pathos not quite on par though with a professor of micro economics whose class I once attended. He often wrote things on the blackboard that he had to wipe out a minute later because it somehow wasn't right. The best moment was when, before we could even complain, he started wiping out a line with his left hand that his right hand was still busy writing. A major trick of motoric coordination!

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by atavisms

The Harrit paper (Active Thermitic Material Found...)is an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper. You can attack the journal and the authors, or the peer-review process it underwent, all you want. (This is what is done in lieu of a real argument) I haven't seen anything anywhere (in any peer-reviewed scientific journal that has refuted it findings,.
Have you?

Stay tuned for a JREF-forumite-funded research project refuting the vanity-published Jones/Harrit blather.

By most definitions, Jones/Harrit fails to meet standards for peer review.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by atavisms

And what peer-review process has any of the government's so-called 'investigations' been subjected to? None.

Wrong. Anyone who takes the 3 secs to google "NIST peer review" knows it was. But then again, if it doesn't come from any of the pre-approved sources of "truth" it must not be correct.

Quote:

Since 1959, the National Research Council (NRC) has assessed the technical merit, relevance, and quality of NIST's (previously NBS's) laboratory programs in the context of NIST's mission.

Quote:

Several ongoing programs were reviewed by the panel...The investigation of the collapse of the World Trade
Center (WTC) had a major impact on the resources in the Structures Program over the past 6 years. The final report on WTC 1 and 2 has been issued,and the group is nearing completion of the report on Building No. 7.

[...]

The areas of WUI fires and the World Trade Center investigation were presented
to the panel in detail. These areas have had a clear and very positive focusing effect on
the BFRL, and the response of the entire BFRL organization has been admirable during
these investigations...

[...]

The BFRL continues to demonstrate a core competence in the Fire StrategicPriority Area, particularly in the design and execution of experiments and the consistent coupling of experiments to validate predictive, physics-based computational tools. The work on the World Trade Center investigation is a very strong indicator of the fundamental quality that the BFRL has and the value of the laboratory to the United States.

[superlogicalthinker]

Originally Posted by Myriad

A few months ago, a bunch of truthers pretended to have hearings, in Toronto.

I think the next step should be to pretend to arrest those neo-con perpetrators. Then you can pretend to try them for the crimes you pretend were committed based on the evidence you pretend to have. That should be sufficient to pretend to find them guilty and then pretend to hang them.

It won't be as satisfying as actually doing anything, but it's as much as your movement will ever be able to accomplish, so I see no reason to delay.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Absolutely non sencical

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

Absolutely non sencical

This is worthy of a studie!

I wonder what sencical means?

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

Absolutely non sencical

your rite! people pretending to have a triel is compleatly non sencical!

[triforcharity]

WOW. SLT didn't think through that, did he? LOL!!

[superlogicalthinker]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

your rite! people pretending to have a triel is compleatly non sencical!

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

We don't pretend that they don't exist. We just feel that there is nothing about them that sugessts that they are thermite residues.

No, not the slightest indication.

The spheres look like they could have been on the steel when it was painted. We have several rational explanations for that.

Basille can light one of his chips up in a nitrogen atmosphere and shut us up or at least cause us to re-assess what we are saying, but it is probably beyond the mental capacity of such a gullible twit.

I think it takes a special kind of stupid to think there is anything unusual about the chips to begin with.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

Really? The hearings were real? Cool.

Who appeared for the opposition? Anyone?

Anyone??????

Oh, right, nevermind......

[twinstead]

Not giving any expert witnesses for the "official story" any input is the very definition of a real trial in SLT's eyes.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

Can you either

A) Link to a post where someone on JREF said the microspheres didn't exist

or

B) Apologize?


Oddly, I'm feeling the likelyhood of either happening are slim and none.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Oddly, I'm feeling the likelyhood of either happening are slim and none.

And Slim just left the building

[tsig]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

The hilited seems to be a superlogical term I'm not familiar with.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker

There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.

Where do you get off claiming that "we" say they aren't there? They are mentioned in official reports which is the very reports people like Steven Jones used to claim they existed in the first place. The difference is these reports say that these iron microspheres are expected. Apparently you dont know the difference between something that is expected vs not there at all. Quite a bit of difference, just so you know.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Not giving any expert witnesses for the "official story" any input is the very definition of a real trial in SLT's eyes.

They can't very well have those evil bastards confusing the issue with their "science" and "words", now can they?

[NoahFence]

Another *********** truther making a claim, and refusing to back it up.

Another day, another dollar.