Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper - Page 10

ergo · 21st May 2012, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite

Strange how this confirms everything the common literature has already said about nanothermite. It's almost as if anonymous nanothermite bedunkers don't really understand what they're talking about.

Dave Rogers · 21st May 2012, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Strange how this confirms everything the common literature has already said about nanothermite.

Repeating the falsehood that nanothermite violates conservation of energy will not make it true.

Dave

Ivan Kminek · 21st May 2012, 08:28 AM

Josarhus: Interesting. So N. Harrit, who knows basically nothing about polymers, is sure now that Jim Millette, as a top forensic expert specialized on the material analyses, misinterpreted somehow his FTIR spectra of red-gray chips

Rather surprisingly for me, they are no easily/freely available FTIR spectra of epoxy resins cured by amines on the net. They are mostly available only in bloody expensive databases. Anyway.... Let me consider what I see in Appendix C in Jim Millette's preliminary report, since here, FTIR spectra are for sure comparable:

In the first graph I see FTIR spectra of four red chips, which are very apparently the same material. Those spectra can serve me as a proof that there is some range of wavenumbers, within which individual characteristic absorption bands wavenumbers can vary for the same material. E.g., band at ca 1710 cm^-1 appears in the range from 1707 to 1725 cm^-1, band at ca 2930 cm^-1 varies from 2928 to 2934 cm^-1 etc. Generally, bands wavenumbers fluctuate in the range of ca 3 to 15 cm^-1 for the same material here.

Naturally, we can expect similar variation in the order of some 3-15 cm^-1 also when comparing chips FTIR spectra with proven epoxy coating, as we see on the second graph.
Here, as for epoxy resin identification, we can consider only the region between ca 3500 and 1100 cm^-1 , since above and below this range, kaolin absorption bands occur.
Now, I will summarize wavenumbers of distinct bands which are observed for red chip and for epoxy coating in some very primitive table (sorry for idiotic "formatting":

Epoxy: 2934-2957 (double peak)
Chip: 2928

Epoxy: 2867
Chip: 2858

Epoxy: 1731
Chip: 1716

Epoxy: 1607
Chip: 1604

Epoxy: 1508
Chip: 1509

Epoxy: 1415
Chip: 1412

Epoxy: 1361
Chip: 1361

Epoxy: 1294
Chip: 1297

Epoxy: 1243
Chip: 1231

Epoxy: 1181
Chip: 1183

For me, the epoxy binder is proven in this way (but I'm not expert on infrared spectra material identifications, I just rely on Jim's long time experience with various materials).

Just for the record, let me also again past this paragraph from this page named Identification of polymers by IR spectroscopy:
"Bisphenol epoxy resin (our case, I.K.)
Since both bisphenol epoxy and polycarbonate are based on Bisphenol A, there are a number of similarities in their infrared spectra. There is no carbonyl band in the bisphenol epoxy spectrum, but the aromatic ring-breathing mode at 1,510 [cm.sup.-1] is very strong. Here the 1,610 [cm.sup.-1] ring-breathing mode is also relatively strong. The C-O stretch is strong and appears as two bands, a broad band with a maximum near 1,247 [cm.sup.-1] and a narrower and slightly weaker band with a maximum near 1,182 [cm.sup.-1]. Significant intensity is also seen in the out-of-plane aromatic C-H wag at 830 [cm.sup.-1]."

And what I see in the FTIR spectra of both epoxy coating and red chips in Appendix C, Millette's report (among others)? Quite strong bands at ca 1610 and 1510 cm^-1 and some bands at ca 1240 and 1180 cm^-1 . This is of course not really conclusive finding, just some hint that Jim Millette is right (basically in everything)

Oystein · 21st May 2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them.

A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size.

Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away.

And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint.

MM

Whoops, there goes that goal post!

here, let me help you move it back:

Originally Posted by Miragememories

This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

To which Josarhus replied:

Originally Posted by Josarhus

But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel.

Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints.

I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded:

Originally Posted by Harrit

So NIST is describing "another paint" in their report? Then it's funny that they could only get hold on one.

In short,
MM: "Harrit is willing to concede and consider LaClede"
Harrit: "I am not yet willing to concede and consider LaClede"

There is a discrepancy. Do you see that?

I guess it is time for you to now back up your claim that "I [MM] know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust. That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint."
It's not Harrit. Who among the AE911T leaders and followers has yet actually conceded the existence and relevance of LaClede paint?

I would like to remind you at this time of the Harrit letter that YOU, Miragememories, linked to a few days ago:

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf

In this paper, Harrit compares the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of Tnemec primer as published by NIST. He did NOT scrape any Tnemec off of any steel and analyse it, he went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation.

In my "paint" thread, I do the exact same thing, only I compare the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of LaClede primer as published by NIST. I did NOT scrape any LaClede paint off of any steel and analyse it, I went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation.

Do you notice how the two texts that I marked blue are identical, except that the words "Harrit - Tnemec - he", which I boldfaced, became "I - LaClede - I"?

Quite apparently, it was totally acceptable to Harrit to compare his chip data with a formulation of a primer as published by NIST. Now suddenly this is not okay when I do it?

Don't you see the double standards here?

Oystein · 21st May 2012, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction.

Done.

Dave

This. It bears repeating:

Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction.

Done.

Simple as that. Farrer's DSC results, together with Basile's "confirmation" of the elemental composition and burn rate, prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at least 98% of the heat of that burning comes from combustion of the organic matrix with oxygen from the air.

phiwum · 21st May 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

I did a survey last year of about a thousand of the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and one result was interesting.

About 10% of the members haven't signed the petition specifying thermite and do not have anything related to explosives mentioned in their bios or websites.

Interesting, huh? That at least 10% of A&E911T folks didn't sign onto the thermite theory.

Yes, that is interesting.

I wonder, though, for comparison's sake. Did you ask each of them whether they agreed with the proposition that an unknown weapon turned most of the steel of WTC 1 and 2 to foam? What percentage replied, "Gosh and golly, you betcha!"

Oystein · 8th June 2012, 04:12 PM

Back to AE911T having promised a critique of Millettes progress report:

Richard Gage is currently on tour, promoting his latest edition of a propaganda film which still features at least two "nanothermite scientist", Jeff Farrer and Marc Basile. Gage blogs after the events. Here is something he wrote after the 5/25 gig in Seattle:

Originally Posted by Richard Gage

One gentleman wanted to know how thermite could be responsible for pulverizing all of the concrete floors in the Twin Towers. The important thing to remember is that we do not have all the answers about nanothermite and its explosive capability. In addition, it's possible that conventional explosives were used in conjunction with thermite to bring the buildings down. Regardless, the existence of thermitic material in the WTC dust samples is additional proof that the official story is a lie and it is enough to warrant a real 9/11 investigation.

This sounds like a little cautious on the properties of nt (actually an evasion of the question of hypothesis), but still no caution regarding the existence of nt in the dust.

Ivan Kminek · 13th June 2012, 11:55 PM

MUST READ:

Free Scootle!
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co....e-scootle.html

And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy
http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...onspiracy.html

Dave Rogers · 14th June 2012, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

MUST READ:

Free Scootle!
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co....e-scootle.html

And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy
http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...onspiracy.html

Oh, I like this:

Quote:

We may have invested a lot of time into defending it, but don't worry, unlike debunkers, we don't let emotional investments and cognitive dissonance cloud our rational judgement!

Again, my big concern is what a refutation of Harrit et al will mean for AE911Truth and their movie. No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics, so I'll defend the 1700 individual A&Es to the death,

Anybody else see the contradiction here?

Dave

Justin39640 · 14th June 2012, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek

MUST READ:

Free Scootle!
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co....e-scootle.html

And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy
http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...onspiracy.html

Holy crap. I never seen his "music video" before.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That guy needs to get out of the basement and get a tan, STAT! He looks like he needs about 4000 pushups. A few shrugs wouldn't hurt either. The boy got shoulders like a bookshelf lol.

I think a small animal died on his head too.

UNLoVedRebel · 14th June 2012, 04:35 AM

How about some singing and song writing lessons first.

cjnewson88 · 14th June 2012, 04:38 AM

Quote:

For me, it all comes down to Basile's study. Whichever side is 2-1 up after that is the one I'll side with. JM says the same.

Basile's study? Does he mean this one which was done over a year ago? I'm lost.. is he doing another? it is being reviewed? explain..

Oystein · 14th June 2012, 04:39 AM

"Emotional investment" indeed!

Justin39640 · 14th June 2012, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

How about some singing and song writing lessons first.

Sorry, I thought the hopeless lack of talent was obvious. lol

Oystein · 14th June 2012, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Basile's study? Does he mean this one which was done over a year ago? I'm lost.. is he doing another? it is being reviewed? explain..

Yes, rumour is rising among the Twoofful that Mark Basile is going to publish a new study.

I wonder if he is going to confirm yet again that the paint chips are not thermitic in nature at all, since no more than 1% of their energy could possibly come from the thermite reaction?

cjnewson88 · 14th June 2012, 04:53 AM

I must say that thread title was entirely appropriate.. What is it with truthers and their need to release multiple versions of the 'truth'?

So, when are we expecting this 'new study' and how should we expect it to be any different to his last?

ElMondoHummus · 14th June 2012, 05:05 AM

All that needs to be said about Basile's opinion was already said. Back in 2010.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Why is this news? Mr. Basile was acknowledged in the original paper. We already knew his opinion, years ago.

What's needed is independent confirmation, which we all know will never, ever happen.

And the Truthers still haven't figured out that their own data proves it isn't nanothermite...

It's dead, Truthers. Find something else to whine about. It's over.

Another truther stepping forward is irrelevant. What's needed is progression of knowledge, not rehashing of it.

Ivan Kminek · 14th June 2012, 05:15 AM

Personally, I think that we should highly appreciate this article of ScootleRoyale, since this guy is apparently able to change his mind, if confronted with the good arguments and reasoning

And it is anyway the very first article in the Debunking the Debunkers web which (to some extent) admits that JREFers can be right as for red-gray chips.

I have no idea how influential is this web among remaining truthers, but ScootleRoyale seems to be rather disgusted with the "Experts Speak Out" Tour and AE911Truth. Not so bad, for a start

pgimeno · 14th June 2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Yes, rumour is rising among the Twoofful that Mark Basile is going to publish a new study.

The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory.

It's even mentioned in the post cited above:

He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.

(On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post:

No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics

because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5).

Oystein · 14th June 2012, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by pgimeno

The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory.

It's even mentioned in the post cited above:

He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.

Correct, that's what I heard, too. I even got a link:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/

Now, aneta.org is the stillborn "Association for Nine Eleven Truth Activists" by Rick Shaddock aka "Cicorp" aka "TruthMakesPeace" (I think), who is its "Executive Director" (read: lone guy in basement). So I am not sure if this fundraiser is current and THE Mark Basile fundraiser.

My rumours seem to indicate that this will come to fruition soon - not soon if he really got an independent lab to do it blindly though.

Originally Posted by pgimeno

(On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post:

No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics

because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5).

Never mind. It is settled, compacted and dried in their minds that "NIST" and "Bazant" only tell tales. It's apparently unnecessary to draw any distictions. Just two different members of the same NWO

fourtoe · 14th June 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Now, aneta.org is the stillborn "Association for Nine Eleven Truth Activists" by Rick Shaddock aka "Cicorp" aka "TruthMakesPeace" (I think), who is its "Executive Director" (read: lone guy in basement). So I am not sure if this fundraiser is current and THE Mark Basile fundraiser.

Isn't TruthMakesPeace one of the guys that helped Chris Mohr get together with Millette lab?

Oystein · 14th June 2012, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by fourtoe

Isn't TruthMakesPeace one of the guys that helped Chris Mohr get together with Millette lab?

Hmmm rings a bell
<-- *scratches head*
I made myself a private list of persons in the 9/11 debate with nicknames, real names, where they are from and who they are affiliated with. I plugged in both nicknames for Rick Shaddock. I am certain that he is cicorp, but don't remember why I thought he is also TMP

On the other hand, if Rick is helping Basile to get together with a lab, why not do the same for Chris?

cjnewson88 · 14th June 2012, 06:47 PM

$5000? Millette only cost a fifth of that..

TruthersLie · 14th June 2012, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Hmmm rings a bell
<-- *scratches head*
I made myself a private list of persons in the 9/11 debate with nicknames, real names, where they are from and who they are affiliated with. I plugged in both nicknames for Rick Shaddock. I am certain that he is cicorp, but don't remember why I thought he is also TMP

On the other hand, if Rick is helping Basile to get together with a lab, why not do the same for Chris?

He is both Cicorp and truthmakespeace. He came on and registered as Cicorp... which was the name of his company which had "contracts with the government." After a while he realized (or had it pointed out to him) how incredibly stupid it was to be posting on any forum the truth wackiness which would then be affiliated with that company and so he changed his username to truthmakespeace

Oystein · 14th June 2012, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

$5000? Millette only cost a fifth of that..

Right, but he is giving us a >$1000 value. It's like a little extra cash, but mostly he is doing the work for his own publication.

To put this into perspective: If you want my professional sevice as a consultant (project manager), I'll try to charge you 720 Euro/day, that's about $900 at current rates. For $1000, you'll get me for a day and and another hour. Millette should value his time higher than I do mine, AND he has expensive technical equipment that should go into the charge. He has certainly put a lot more than 1 day into this project

cjnewson88 · 15th June 2012, 02:46 AM

Thing is based on ae911 fund raisers going pretty well into the pocket of Gage, I'm a little suspect of pitching in on a truther fund raiser of which some could just go into some truthers pocket. Have they decided who they're going to send these 'blind' samples off to yet? Are they going to perform the same test Millette did or just throw them in a DSC and burn them again?

Oystein · 15th June 2012, 06:41 AM

I have no idea.

They should do what Chris Mohr initially wanted to do:

Give them a sample and ask "Is there any thermite in there?" (and one might add: "if yes, how much?").

Or, if you really want to go blind: "Tell me all the chemical compounds in these chips, separately per chip, and their relative amounts!" (and perhaps add: "Can you identify what material it is and how it might be used?")

And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked.

Justin39640 · 15th June 2012, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Right, but he is giving us a >$1000 value. It's like a little extra cash, but mostly he is doing the work for his own publication.

To put this into perspective: If you want my professional sevice as a consultant (project manager), I'll try to charge you 720 Euro/day, that's about $900 at current rates. For $1000, you'll get me for a day and and another hour. Millette should value his time higher than I do mine, AND he has expensive technical equipment that should go into the charge. He has certainly put a lot more than 1 day into this project

Seriously. I was shocked to see how cheap it was. The publication has to be worth a lot though. I charge close to you. You need me to fix your machine all day, it's about $800 - 1000 labor plus parts

. I once did a $15,000 brake job lol.

Jono · 21st June 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked.

Exactemundo.

chrismohr · 21st June 2012, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

I have no idea.

They should do what Chris Mohr initially wanted to do:

Give them a sample and ask "Is there any thermite in there?" (and one might add: "if yes, how much?").

Or, if you really want to go blind: "Tell me all the chemical compounds in these chips, separately per chip, and their relative amounts!" (and perhaps add: "Can you identify what material it is and how it might be used?")

And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked.

Hi all, Rick Shaddock talked with me about possibly organizing a blind study of the red-gray chips. He also talked with Mark Basile about it. I suggested through Rick that Mark consider finding a lab we all could agree had credibility IN ADVANCE, and apparently both Mark and Rick liked the idea. I haven't heard more tho, and that was a couple months ago.

BTW Rick is indeed working hard with me on the chrismohr911 site, collecting re-rebuttals from Chris Sarns, Adam Taylor and others. Adam is about to release a paper responding to my YouTube videos and will be filling in the boxes with his responses. I am working with several JREFers to put in re-re-rebuttals. That's what I know.

Miragememories · 22nd June 2012, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them.

A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size.

Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away.

And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"Whoops, there goes that goal post!

here, let me help you move it back:"

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"This [see the quote below] is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf"

Originally Posted by Dr. Niels Harrit

"In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could
not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"To which Josarhus replied:"

Originally Posted by Josarhus

"Harrits will not discuss Millette's paper in public, because it hasn’t been published jet. But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel.

Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints.

I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded:"

Pure unsourced hearsay and taken out of context.

Originally Posted by Oystein

"...In short,
MM: "Harrit is willing to concede and consider LaClede"
Harrit: "I am not yet willing to concede and consider LaClede"

[Oystein uses improvised quotes, without proper context, which makes them lies]

There is a discrepancy. Do you see that?..."

Do you understand what contamination means?

Do you understand what the contamination would be comprised of?

Dr. Harrit acknowledges the existence of contamination and accepts that contamination can represent any material that existed within the WTC at the time of collapse.

It is implicit in his statement, that any primer paints used in the WTC, whether known to him personally or not, could very well exist in the uncleaned surface contamination of the red chips.

What he rejects, is your untested belief that primer paint, Tnemec, LaClede or otherwise, was observable in the 'cleaned red chips' he tested.

MM

Oystein · 22nd June 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

...
What he ~~rejects~~ ~~refuses to consider~~ handwaves, is your ~~untested belief~~ proven fact that primer paint, Tnemec, LaClede or otherwise, was observ~~able~~ed in the 'cleaned red chips' he tested.

MM

Corrected that for you.

You have again moved goal posts. Asking what the chips ARE is step 2. Harrit failed already in step 1: Recognizing that, when you do consider paint, Tnemec is not the only candidate, and that you also have to consider LaClede, or unknown other, paints.

Oystein · 22nd June 2012, 05:09 PM

On a German board (gulli.de - that's sort of an online magazine with a big forum for all sorts of topics; basically one big "NWO" thread with over 14,000 posts that's mostly 9/11-related) Dirk Gerhardt aka Sitting Bull and another truther have been pushing the assertion that elemental aluminium, reacts strongly with water, in a reaction 2 Al + 3 H2O -> Al₂O₃ + 3 H₂ (+ heat), and that this may have happened when Millette washed the chips, and, after ashing, suspended the released pigments, in clean water, thereby turning elemental Al into oxide. Dirk's sidekick presented me with some data sheet on "phlegmatized" Al powder, which stated that the powder must be kept away from water as it might react vigorously and present an explosive hazard. This had me fooled for a day: I thought "phlegmatize" was basically the same as "passivated", which is "cover the metal with a thin layer of oxide so it can't oxidize any further on air".

I forgot to research the actual meaning of the word. Wikipedia told me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegmatized
It actually means that some reactive substance is protected right after, or even during, protection by covering it, or immersing it, in some material that keeps oxygen away, so it won't react. In the case of Al powder, linseed oil is often used; it very much slows down the passivation of the top layer of aluminium.

So Dirk was certainly wrong: After 8 years, even a phlegmatized Al-particle would have been passivated.

(He is further wrong because Millette found Al-silicate, not oxide, after washing. Silicate could npt form from the contact of elemental Al with water)

OCaptain · 22nd June 2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

I must say that thread title was entirely appropriate.. What is it with truthers and their need to release multiple versions of the 'truth'?

So, when are we expecting this 'new study' and how should we expect it to be any different to his last?

Unless he's going to recant, and he's choosing a very bizarre way to do it?

Miragememories · 25th June 2012, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Corrected that for you.

You have again moved goal posts. Asking what the chips ARE is step 2. Harrit failed already in step 1: Recognizing that, when you do consider paint, Tnemec is not the only candidate, and that you also have to consider LaClede, or unknown other, paints.

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

thedopefishlives · 25th June 2012, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

No, it has not. Harrit's own results themselves completely disprove the thermite hypothesis, by the DSC energy release alone. There is no reason to disregard them as being paint chips, because no further characterization was done to either prove or disprove them as such. It is still a valid hypothesis until Harrit, Farrer, and Jones release the data from the more detailed tests they claimed they did.

Dave Rogers · 25th June 2012, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

ITYM "testing has shown that one specific formulation of primer paint is not a valid consideration." There are many different kinds of paint, some of which are not soluble in MEK, as several of my old shirts bear witness.

Dave

Miragememories · 25th June 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

ITYM "testing has shown that one specific formulation of primer paint is not a valid consideration." There are many different kinds of paint, some of which are not soluble in MEK, as several of my old shirts bear witness.

Dave

Do your old shirts leave iron-rich microspheres in their residue when ignited?

Does any primer paint to your knowledge?

MM

thedopefishlives · 25th June 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Do your old shirts leave iron-rich microspheres in their residue when ignited?

Does any primer paint to your knowledge?

MM

How about, "Primer paint that is still bonded to a microscopic layer of the steel to which it was applied?" Does that count?

Dave Rogers · 25th June 2012, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Do your old shirts leave iron-rich microspheres in their residue when ignited?

Quite possibly, given some of the stuff that gets soaked into them. They're a pretty common product of combustion.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Does any primer paint to your knowledge?

Any primer paint that contains iron oxide as a pigment will leave iron-rich microspheres in its residue when ignited.

Dave

21st May 2012, 08:25 AM	#361
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite Strange how this confirms everything the common literature has already said about nanothermite. It's almost as if anonymous nanothermite bedunkers don't really understand what they're talking about.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,853	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

21st May 2012, 08:28 AM	#362
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by ergo Strange how this confirms everything the common literature has already said about nanothermite. Repeating the falsehood that nanothermite violates conservation of energy will not make it true. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

21st May 2012, 08:28 AM	#363
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 821	Josarhus: Interesting. So N. Harrit, who knows basically nothing about polymers, is sure now that Jim Millette, as a top forensic expert specialized on the material analyses, misinterpreted somehow his FTIR spectra of red-gray chips Rather surprisingly for me, they are no easily/freely available FTIR spectra of epoxy resins cured by amines on the net. They are mostly available only in bloody expensive databases. Anyway.... Let me consider what I see in Appendix C in Jim Millette's preliminary report, since here, FTIR spectra are for sure comparable: In the first graph I see FTIR spectra of four red chips, which are very apparently the same material. Those spectra can serve me as a proof that there is some range of wavenumbers, within which individual characteristic absorption bands wavenumbers can vary for the same material. E.g., band at ca 1710 cm^-1 appears in the range from 1707 to 1725 cm^-1, band at ca 2930 cm^-1 varies from 2928 to 2934 cm^-1 etc. Generally, bands wavenumbers fluctuate in the range of ca 3 to 15 cm^-1 for the same material here. Naturally, we can expect similar variation in the order of some 3-15 cm^-1 also when comparing chips FTIR spectra with proven epoxy coating, as we see on the second graph. Here, as for epoxy resin identification, we can consider only the region between ca 3500 and 1100 cm^-1 , since above and below this range, kaolin absorption bands occur. Now, I will summarize wavenumbers of distinct bands which are observed for red chip and for epoxy coating in some very primitive table (sorry for idiotic "formatting": Epoxy: 2934-2957 (double peak) Chip: 2928 Epoxy: 2867 Chip: 2858 Epoxy: 1731 Chip: 1716 Epoxy: 1607 Chip: 1604 Epoxy: 1508 Chip: 1509 Epoxy: 1415 Chip: 1412 Epoxy: 1361 Chip: 1361 Epoxy: 1294 Chip: 1297 Epoxy: 1243 Chip: 1231 Epoxy: 1181 Chip: 1183 For me, the epoxy binder is proven in this way (but I'm not expert on infrared spectra material identifications, I just rely on Jim's long time experience with various materials). Just for the record, let me also again past this paragraph from this page named Identification of polymers by IR spectroscopy: "Bisphenol epoxy resin (our case, I.K.) Since both bisphenol epoxy and polycarbonate are based on Bisphenol A, there are a number of similarities in their infrared spectra. There is no carbonyl band in the bisphenol epoxy spectrum, but the aromatic ring-breathing mode at 1,510 [cm.sup.-1] is very strong. Here the 1,610 [cm.sup.-1] ring-breathing mode is also relatively strong. The C-O stretch is strong and appears as two bands, a broad band with a maximum near 1,247 [cm.sup.-1] and a narrower and slightly weaker band with a maximum near 1,182 [cm.sup.-1]. Significant intensity is also seen in the out-of-plane aromatic C-H wag at 830 [cm.sup.-1]." And what I see in the FTIR spectra of both epoxy coating and red chips in Appendix C, Millette's report (among others)? Quite strong bands at ca 1610 and 1510 cm^-1 and some bands at ca 1240 and 1180 cm^-1 . This is of course not really conclusive finding, just some hint that Jim Millette is right (basically in everything)
	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 21st May 2012 at 08:50 AM.

14th June 2012, 01:22 AM	#369
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek MUST READ: Free Scootle! http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co....e-scootle.html And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...onspiracy.html Oh, I like this: Quote: We may have invested a lot of time into defending it, but don't worry, unlike debunkers, we don't let emotional investments and cognitive dissonance cloud our rational judgement! Again, my big concern is what a refutation of Harrit et al will mean for AE911Truth and their movie. No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics, so I'll defend the 1700 individual A&Es to the death, Anybody else see the contradiction here? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

14th June 2012, 04:35 AM	#371
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,507	How about some singing and song writing lessons first.
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe

21st May 2012, 08:39 AM	#364
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by Miragememories If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them. A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size. Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away. And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint. MM Whoops, there goes that goal post! here, let me help you move it back: Originally Posted by Miragememories This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust. That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint. To which Josarhus replied: Originally Posted by Josarhus But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel. Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints. I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded: Originally Posted by Harrit So NIST is describing "another paint" in their report? Then it's funny that they could only get hold on one. In short, MM: "Harrit is willing to concede and consider LaClede" Harrit: "I am not yet* willing to concede and consider LaClede" There is a discrepancy. Do you see that? I guess it is time for you to now back up your claim that "I [MM] know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust. That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint." It's not Harrit. Who among the AE911T leaders and followers has yet actually conceded the existence and relevance of LaClede paint? I would like to remind you at this time of the Harrit letter that YOU, Miragememories, linked to a few days ago: http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf In this paper, Harrit* compares the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of Tnemec primer as published by NIST. He did NOT scrape any Tnemec off of any steel and analyse it, he went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation. In my "paint" thread, I do the exact same thing, only I compare the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of LaClede primer as published by NIST. I did NOT scrape any LaClede paint off of any steel and analyse it, I went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation. Do you notice how the two texts that I marked blue are identical, except that the words "Harrit - Tnemec - he", which I boldfaced, became "I - LaClede - I"? Quite apparently, it was totally acceptable to Harrit to compare his chip data with a formulation of a primer as published by NIST. Now suddenly this is not okay when I do it? Don't you see the double standards here?

21st May 2012, 08:48 AM	#365
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction. Done. Dave This. It bears repeating: Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction. Done. Simple as that. Farrer's DSC results, together with Basile's "confirmation" of the elemental composition and burn rate, prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at least 98% of the heat of that burning comes from combustion of the organic matrix with oxygen from the air.

21st May 2012, 12:26 PM	#366
phiwum Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Boston area Posts: 611	Originally Posted by WTC Dust I did a survey last year of about a thousand of the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and one result was interesting. About 10% of the members haven't signed the petition specifying thermite and do not have anything related to explosives mentioned in their bios or websites. Interesting, huh? That at least 10% of A&E911T folks didn't sign onto the thermite theory. Yes, that is interesting. I wonder, though, for comparison's sake. Did you ask each of them whether they agreed with the proposition that an unknown weapon turned most of the steel of WTC 1 and 2 to foam? What percentage replied, "Gosh and golly, you betcha!"

8th June 2012, 04:12 PM	#367
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Back to AE911T having promised a critique of Millettes progress report: Richard Gage is currently on tour, promoting his latest edition of a propaganda film which still features at least two "nanothermite scientist", Jeff Farrer and Marc Basile. Gage blogs after the events. Here is something he wrote after the 5/25 gig in Seattle: Originally Posted by Richard Gage One gentleman wanted to know how thermite could be responsible for pulverizing all of the concrete floors in the Twin Towers. The important thing to remember is that we do not have all the answers about nanothermite and its explosive capability. In addition, it's possible that conventional explosives were used in conjunction with thermite to bring the buildings down. Regardless, the existence of thermitic material in the WTC dust samples is additional proof that the official story is a lie and it is enough to warrant a real 9/11 investigation. This sounds like a little cautious on the properties of nt (actually an evasion of the question of hypothesis), but still no caution regarding the existence of nt in the dust.

13th June 2012, 11:55 PM	#368
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 821	MUST READ: Free Scootle! http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co....e-scootle.html And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012...onspiracy.html

14th June 2012, 04:38 AM	#372
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,286	Quote: For me, it all comes down to Basile's study. Whichever side is 2-1 up after that is the one I'll side with. JM says the same. Basile's study? Does he mean this one which was done over a year ago? I'm lost.. is he doing another? it is being reviewed? explain..
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

14th June 2012, 04:39 AM	#373
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	"Emotional investment" indeed!

14th June 2012, 04:41 AM	#374
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel How about some singing and song writing lessons first. Sorry, I thought the hopeless lack of talent was obvious. lol
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

14th June 2012, 04:43 AM	#375
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 Basile's study? Does he mean this one which was done over a year ago? I'm lost.. is he doing another? it is being reviewed? explain.. Yes, rumour is rising among the Twoofful that Mark Basile is going to publish a new study. I wonder if he is going to confirm yet again that the paint chips are not thermitic in nature at all, since no more than 1% of their energy could possibly come from the thermite reaction?

14th June 2012, 04:53 AM	#376
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,286	I must say that thread title was entirely appropriate.. What is it with truthers and their need to release multiple versions of the 'truth'? So, when are we expecting this 'new study' and how should we expect it to be any different to his last?
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

14th June 2012, 05:05 AM	#377
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,943	All that needs to be said about Basile's opinion was already said. Back in 2010. Originally Posted by R.Mackey Why is this news? Mr. Basile was acknowledged in the original paper. We already knew his opinion, years ago. What's needed is independent confirmation, which we all know will never, ever happen. And the Truthers still haven't figured out that their own data proves it isn't nanothermite... It's dead, Truthers. Find something else to whine about. It's over. Another truther stepping forward is irrelevant. What's needed is progression of knowledge, not rehashing of it.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

14th June 2012, 05:15 AM	#378
Ivan Kminek Muse Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Czech Republic Posts: 821	Personally, I think that we should highly appreciate this article of ScootleRoyale, since this guy is apparently able to change his mind, if confronted with the good arguments and reasoning And it is anyway the very first article in the Debunking the Debunkers web which (to some extent) admits that JREFers can be right as for red-gray chips. I have no idea how influential is this web among remaining truthers, but ScootleRoyale seems to be rather disgusted with the "Experts Speak Out" Tour and AE911Truth. Not so bad, for a start
	Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 14th June 2012 at 05:24 AM.

14th June 2012, 06:39 AM	#379
pgimeno Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 1,306	Originally Posted by Oystein Yes, rumour is rising among the Twoofful that Mark Basile is going to publish a new study. The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory. It's even mentioned in the post cited above: He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile. (On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post: No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5).
	__________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place. Last edited by pgimeno; 14th June 2012 at 06:40 AM.

14th June 2012, 09:02 AM	#380
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by pgimeno The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory. It's even mentioned in the post cited above: He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile. Correct, that's what I heard, too. I even got a link: http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/ Now, aneta.org is the stillborn "Association for Nine Eleven Truth Activists" by Rick Shaddock aka "Cicorp" aka "TruthMakesPeace" (I think), who is its "Executive Director" (read: lone guy in basement). So I am not sure if this fundraiser is current and THE Mark Basile fundraiser. My rumours seem to indicate that this will come to fruition soon - not soon if he really got an independent lab to do it blindly though. Originally Posted by pgimeno (On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post: No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5). Never mind. It is settled, compacted and dried in their minds that "NIST" and "Bazant" only tell tales. It's apparently unnecessary to draw any distictions. Just two different members of the same NWO
	Last edited by Oystein; 14th June 2012 at 09:03 AM.

14th June 2012, 01:48 PM	#381
fourtoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Northridge, Ca Posts: 1,015	Originally Posted by Oystein Now, aneta.org is the stillborn "Association for Nine Eleven Truth Activists" by Rick Shaddock aka "Cicorp" aka "TruthMakesPeace" (I think), who is its "Executive Director" (read: lone guy in basement). So I am not sure if this fundraiser is current and THE Mark Basile fundraiser. Isn't TruthMakesPeace one of the guys that helped Chris Mohr get together with Millette lab?
	__________________ *My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.* -Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda -I sooo have a blog. -The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!

14th June 2012, 02:53 PM	#382
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by fourtoe Isn't TruthMakesPeace one of the guys that helped Chris Mohr get together with Millette lab? Hmmm rings a bell <-- scratches head I made myself a private list of persons in the 9/11 debate with nicknames, real names, where they are from and who they are affiliated with. I plugged in both nicknames for Rick Shaddock. I am certain that he is cicorp, but don't remember why I thought he is also TMP On the other hand, if Rick is helping Basile to get together with a lab, why not do the same for Chris?

14th June 2012, 06:47 PM	#383
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,286	$5000? Millette only cost a fifth of that..
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

14th June 2012, 09:18 PM	#384
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Oystein Hmmm rings a bell <-- scratches head I made myself a private list of persons in the 9/11 debate with nicknames, real names, where they are from and who they are affiliated with. I plugged in both nicknames for Rick Shaddock. I am certain that he is cicorp, but don't remember why I thought he is also TMP On the other hand, if Rick is helping Basile to get together with a lab, why not do the same for Chris? He is both Cicorp and truthmakespeace. He came on and registered as Cicorp... which was the name of his company which had "contracts with the government." After a while he realized (or had it pointed out to him) how incredibly stupid it was to be posting on any forum the truth wackiness which would then be affiliated with that company and so he changed his username to truthmakespeace
	__________________ "There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

14th June 2012, 11:46 PM	#385
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 $5000? Millette only cost a fifth of that.. Right, but he is giving us a >$1000 value. It's like a little extra cash, but mostly he is doing the work for his own publication. To put this into perspective: If you want my professional sevice as a consultant (project manager), I'll try to charge you 720 Euro/day, that's about $900 at current rates. For $1000, you'll get me for a day and and another hour. Millette should value his time higher than I do mine, AND he has expensive technical equipment that should go into the charge. He has certainly put a lot more than 1 day into this project

15th June 2012, 02:46 AM	#386
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,286	Thing is based on ae911 fund raisers going pretty well into the pocket of Gage, I'm a little suspect of pitching in on a truther fund raiser of which some could just go into some truthers pocket. Have they decided who they're going to send these 'blind' samples off to yet? Are they going to perform the same test Millette did or just throw them in a DSC and burn them again?
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

15th June 2012, 06:41 AM	#387
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	I have no idea. They should do what Chris Mohr initially wanted to do: Give them a sample and ask "Is there any thermite in there?" (and one might add: "if yes, how much?"). Or, if you really want to go blind: "Tell me all the chemical compounds in these chips, separately per chip, and their relative amounts!" (and perhaps add: "Can you identify what material it is and how it might be used?") And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked.

15th June 2012, 03:30 PM	#388
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by Oystein Right, but he is giving us a >$1000 value. It's like a little extra cash, but mostly he is doing the work for his own publication. To put this into perspective: If you want my professional sevice as a consultant (project manager), I'll try to charge you 720 Euro/day, that's about $900 at current rates. For $1000, you'll get me for a day and and another hour. Millette should value his time higher than I do mine, AND he has expensive technical equipment that should go into the charge. He has certainly put a lot more than 1 day into this project Seriously. I was shocked to see how cheap it was. The publication has to be worth a lot though. I charge close to you. You need me to fix your machine all day, it's about $800 - 1000 labor plus parts . I once did a $15,000 brake job lol.
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

21st June 2012, 03:35 PM	#389
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,550	Originally Posted by Oystein And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked. Exactemundo.
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard

21st June 2012, 10:00 PM	#390
chrismohr Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1,352	Originally Posted by Oystein I have no idea. They should do what Chris Mohr initially wanted to do: Give them a sample and ask "Is there any thermite in there?" (and one might add: "if yes, how much?"). Or, if you really want to go blind: "Tell me all the chemical compounds in these chips, separately per chip, and their relative amounts!" (and perhaps add: "Can you identify what material it is and how it might be used?") And NOT tell them which methods to use. Let the lab decide which methods are competent to answer the question that is asked. Hi all, Rick Shaddock talked with me about possibly organizing a blind study of the red-gray chips. He also talked with Mark Basile about it. I suggested through Rick that Mark consider finding a lab we all could agree had credibility IN ADVANCE, and apparently both Mark and Rick liked the idea. I haven't heard more tho, and that was a couple months ago. BTW Rick is indeed working hard with me on the chrismohr911 site, collecting re-rebuttals from Chris Sarns, Adam Taylor and others. Adam is about to release a paper responding to my YouTube videos and will be filling in the boxes with his responses. I am working with several JREFers to put in re-re-rebuttals. That's what I know.
	__________________ 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

22nd June 2012, 08:47 AM	#391
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,759	Originally Posted by Miragememories "If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them. A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size. Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away. And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint." Originally Posted by Oystein "Whoops, there goes that goal post! here, let me help you move it back:" Originally Posted by Miragememories "This [see the quote below] is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust. That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint. http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf" Originally Posted by Dr. Niels Harrit "In one experiment the chips were to be soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and could not – for good reasons – be broken before. The resulting XEDS of this chip (Figure 6, below) displays tiny blips indicating the presence of chromium and zinc. They disappeared after the chips had been soaked/rinsed with the organic solvent. Therefore, they are believed to derive from surface contamination, which very well could have been from the primer paint(!)." Originally Posted by Oystein "To which Josarhus replied:" Originally Posted by Josarhus "Harrits will not discuss Millette's paper in public, because it hasn’t been published jet. But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel. Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints. I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded:" Pure unsourced hearsay and taken out of context. Originally Posted by Oystein "...In short, MM: "Harrit is willing to concede and consider LaClede" Harrit: "I am not yet* willing to concede and consider LaClede" [Oystein uses improvised quotes, without proper context, which makes them lies] There is a discrepancy. Do you see that?..." Do you understand what contamination* means? Do you understand what the contamination would be comprised of? Dr. Harrit acknowledges the existence of contamination and accepts that contamination can represent any material that existed within the WTC at the time of collapse. It is implicit in his statement, that any primer paints used in the WTC, whether known to him personally or not, could very well exist in the uncleaned surface contamination of the red chips. What he rejects, is your untested belief that primer paint, Tnemec, LaClede or otherwise, was observable in the 'cleaned red chips' he tested. MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

22nd June 2012, 04:52 PM	#392
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	Originally Posted by Miragememories ... What he ~~rejects~~ ~~refuses to consider~~ handwaves, is your ~~untested belief~~ proven fact that primer paint, Tnemec, LaClede or otherwise, was observ~~able~~ed in the 'cleaned red chips' he tested. MM Corrected that for you. You have again moved goal posts. Asking what the chips ARE is step 2. Harrit failed already in step 1: Recognizing that, when you do consider paint, Tnemec is not the only candidate, and that you also have to consider LaClede, or unknown other, paints.

22nd June 2012, 05:09 PM	#393
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,827	On a German board (gulli.de - that's sort of an online magazine with a big forum for all sorts of topics; basically one big "NWO" thread with over 14,000 posts that's mostly 9/11-related) Dirk Gerhardt aka Sitting Bull and another truther have been pushing the assertion that elemental aluminium, reacts strongly with water, in a reaction 2 Al + 3 H2O -> Al₂O₃ + 3 H₂ (+ heat), and that this may have happened when Millette washed the chips, and, after ashing, suspended the released pigments, in clean water, thereby turning elemental Al into oxide. Dirk's sidekick presented me with some data sheet on "phlegmatized" Al powder, which stated that the powder must be kept away from water as it might react vigorously and present an explosive hazard. This had me fooled for a day: I thought "phlegmatize" was basically the same as "passivated", which is "cover the metal with a thin layer of oxide so it can't oxidize any further on air". I forgot to research the actual meaning of the word. Wikipedia told me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegmatized It actually means that some reactive substance is protected right after, or even during, protection by covering it, or immersing it, in some material that keeps oxygen away, so it won't react. In the case of Al powder, linseed oil is often used; it very much slows down the passivation of the top layer of aluminium. So Dirk was certainly wrong: After 8 years, even a phlegmatized Al-particle would have been passivated. (He is further wrong because Millette found Al-silicate, not oxide, after washing. Silicate could npt form from the contact of elemental Al with water)

22nd June 2012, 07:19 PM	#394
OCaptain Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 917	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 I must say that thread title was entirely appropriate.. What is it with truthers and their need to release multiple versions of the 'truth'? So, when are we expecting this 'new study' and how should we expect it to be any different to his last? Unless he's going to recant, and he's choosing a very bizarre way to do it?
OCaptain Muse Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 917

25th June 2012, 05:20 AM	#395
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,759	Originally Posted by Oystein Corrected that for you. You have again moved goal posts. Asking what the chips ARE is step 2. Harrit failed already in step 1: Recognizing that, when you do consider paint, Tnemec is not the only candidate, and that you also have to consider LaClede, or unknown other, paints. 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
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

25th June 2012, 05:46 AM	#396
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763	Originally Posted by Miragememories 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 No, it has not. Harrit's own results themselves completely disprove the thermite hypothesis, by the DSC energy release alone. There is no reason to disregard them as being paint chips, because no further characterization was done to either prove or disprove them as such. It is still a valid hypothesis until Harrit, Farrer, and Jones release the data from the more detailed tests they claimed they did.
thedopefishlives Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 763