Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper
- Thread starter The Big Dog
- Start date
So did these "people" who sent you samples (I am assuming they sent them to you and not Jones), did they give you,
(A) contact information (or were the packages sent anonymously)?
(B) Did they give you any detail as to where they collected the dust, how they collected, and how long ago?
And are you saying that in these independent samples you originally found the red/grey chips, but now you cannot?
Thanks
TAM
You were told the other chips were much more resistent? I am confused henry. In any of the samples you were sent, did you EVER, yourself, find any of these chips? I am asking because you say you were told the chips were much more resistent, but if you had handled and experimented on the chips themselves, first hand, would you not know that they were more resistant yourself?
I am just trying to get a grasp of your work, what you have done, who provided you with the original material, were there red/grey chips in any of your samples at any time, etc...
Please clarify...thanks
TAM
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
I thought this paper was the 'smoking gun', the thing that was going to finally prove the 'inside job', it was going to be a huge deal, embraced by the scientific community, blown up all over the media and accepted by the world, vindicating the 911 cult minions once and for all...
Gee what happen to all that? hmmm i wonder... LOL
Gee what happen to all that? hmmm i wonder... LOL
So did these "people" who sent you samples (I am assuming they sent them to you and not Jones), did they give you,
(A) contact information (or were the packages sent anonymously)?
(B) Did they give you any detail as to where they collected the dust, how they collected, and how long ago?
And are you saying that in these independent samples you originally found the red/grey chips, but now you cannot?
Thanks
TAM
(A) yes (adress or email)
(B) yes : all useful details provided
I found one red/gray chip, the one i studied in details and presented some time ago on my website. I cannot find others (!?) , though i cannot exclude that some rare tiny red staff in my samples could be from red/gray chips ... .
I can only agree with other searchers that the red only chips are very fragile
As for the genuine red/grey ones i dont know...(didnt test that with the single one i had found and studied)...
So you found ONE chip? in all of the different samples you had, you found ONE chip that was red/grey? That doesn't sound like Jones' stuff. He was finding them in all the samples, wasn't he?
All of your findings were based on one chip? So did you do an MEK wash? Once you did, it was game over for repeating anything I guess.
Sounds to me like you need to get some fresh samples. I am sure that there are many labs who analyzed the dust, who might donate some to you, if you ask.
So how did they know to send them to you themselves? Did you leave your name and address on this "Tract" you speak of? Can you clarify how you SEQUESTERED the samples in the first place?
Thanks.
TAM
yes, but there can be a simple explanation. The first extraction of iron rich material with a magnet i did probably selected the most interesting material ... (microspheres and gray part of the chips very magnetic) . But i only used it to search for the microspheres. ..i thought i would just need to reextract later some more material to look for the chips...but i certainly lost the most interesting chips with this first extraction.
no MEK wash.
exactly
not so sure!
All searchers interested left their coordinates, to later be sent the samples. I also directly call for samples on my website.
I sequester the iron rich particles with a magnet
best
Fred
PS: anyone can do that: buy a 100 USD student microscope and a magnet.
select the interesting staff, put it in a kiln (just need to know
someone who is doing ceramics or pottery ), see if it generates iron microspheres...
Fred;
Given all of the other examinations of the WTC dust by other labs, why do you think there is no mention of these mysterious red/grey chips by any other lab? There is no mention of their existence, let alone what they might be.
Do you think (A) they intentionally ignored them, (B) they felt they were paint chips, and hence labeled them as such, or (C) there samples probably did not contain the chips.
Thanks
TAM
Given all of the other examinations of the WTC dust by other labs, why do you think there is no mention of these mysterious red/grey chips by any other lab? There is no mention of their existence, let alone what they might be.
Do you think (A) they intentionally ignored them, (B) they felt they were paint chips, and hence labeled them as such, or (C) there samples probably did not contain the chips.
Thanks
TAM
the second more likely explanation is that my sample was falsified by people
who dont want me to find the red/gray chips in it: easy to do: extract the genuine red/gray chips of interest from a 911 sample and put in place many red only chips of the kind you can find on a 911 monument in NY (redpaint chips) and send it to me.
Fortunately there was at least one big red/gray chip remaining in the sample
probably a genuine one since it had all the properties mentionned by Harrit, Jones and co, as far as i could check , but unfortunately i could not perform the ignition test to have the complete evidence that it was highly energetic.
I need new samples!
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Nice post by Volatile 6-11-09
Great bit on the New Scientist today about just how reputable and rigorous Bentham are:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html
"Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham."
Guess what happened next...
Fred;
Given all of the other examinations of the WTC dust by other labs, why do you think there is no mention of these mysterious red/grey chips by any other lab? There is no mention of their existence, let alone what they might be.
Do you think (A) they intentionally ignored them, (B) they felt they were paint chips, and hence labeled them as such, or (C) there samples probably did not contain the chips.
Thanks
TAM
B is a likely scenario: in order to conclude that these are not just redpaint chips you need further analysis to find evidence for elemental Al and you need to test them at ignition. You would do these tests only if you a priori suspect thermite ... but probably these lab were not ready to even imagine such a possibility.
I also believe in D: labs didnt find them.
Indeed, the labs did not concentrate on the iron rich part of the dust. If you dont do so you can easily miss the particles of interest.
I wonder if these chips were not simply red paint on a metallic or grey primer. The primer could be of tougher texture, and would have been less exposed to the elements etc... so might have been what made the red/grey chips resilient, but the red chips you have found (perhaps the red paint with no primer attached) are very fragile.
I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???
Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.
TAM
I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???
Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.
TAM
I wonder if these chips were not simply red paint on a metallic or grey primer. The primer could be of tougher texture, and would have been less exposed to the elements etc... so might have been what made the red/grey chips resilient, but the red chips you have found (perhaps the red paint with no primer attached) are very fragile.
I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???
Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.
TAM
It may be of little relevence but here goes.
I fabricated and formed many steel objects/structures in the early 80's. Mainly decorative wrought iron works, steel gates, steel fencing, security grills etc as well as manufacturing larger 'i' beam and 'girder' frames for larger structures.
The metal protection and cosmetics was always completed using paints.
The finished product and bare material was initially coated in what we called 'Red Lead' or 'Red oxide' - Red Paint. To us this was effectively to prevent rust. Once dried we would then apply a grey primer, somtimes a few coats. This would mostly be done using a brush, however larger pieces where sometimes sprayed. No technical or scientific values involved in how thick, just get it on.
The customer would then determine the final colour if a gate or railing. The 'i' beams or 'girders' where painted red with a differnt paint.
Not sure if that helps at all.
I also find it hard to believe, given the very thorough analysis I have read by a number of these labs, that they would miss these chips. Paint (lead and nolead) are mentioned in these analysis as a major component of the dust, yet Jones paper, he does not mention finding paint at all...does that not seem odd???
Fred. Next time you get samples, look for paint as well as thermite, and see what you come up with.
TAM
OK , apart from the USGS do you have links where i could read the other labs results
regarding the dust analysis?
thanks
F
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241534
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240917
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf (PDF)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769
For starters. I am sure a good search with google scholar will help more.
Can't guarantee you can get all of them without a subscription, but I know a couple of them are free.
TAM
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240917
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf (PDF)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769
For starters. I am sure a good search with google scholar will help more.
Can't guarantee you can get all of them without a subscription, but I know a couple of them are free.
TAM
Can someone clarify if the steel structural columns, beams, trusses etc that went in to make up the WTC where infact coated with a protective rust resiliant paint, either prior to instalation or once in situ.
Can someone also clarify whether or not a grey primer was also used to coat these steel structural elements of WTC.
If a grey layer of primer wasnt present on construction then the samples the mad prof produced cant have come from said steel structure.
I would also pose the question as to why any grey 'primer' would have been used at all. Having never set foot inside WTC i am not sure if any steel structure was actually visible, unless for architectural cosmetics. If not, then i would ask why the need for primer? Primer is a key for another layer of paint. Red lead or red oxide would be used to coat the bare material as a protective barrier against corrosion and applied directly to the steel. Primer would only be added ontop of red lead/oxide if a third 'cosmetic' colored paint was required.
Essentially, i see no reason why any steel members would need anything other than a red lead/oxide coating if hidden from view.
Please forgive my ignorance if this is of no relevence or if i have missed something. I am just a simple....................
Can someone also clarify whether or not a grey primer was also used to coat these steel structural elements of WTC.
If a grey layer of primer wasnt present on construction then the samples the mad prof produced cant have come from said steel structure.
I would also pose the question as to why any grey 'primer' would have been used at all. Having never set foot inside WTC i am not sure if any steel structure was actually visible, unless for architectural cosmetics. If not, then i would ask why the need for primer? Primer is a key for another layer of paint. Red lead or red oxide would be used to coat the bare material as a protective barrier against corrosion and applied directly to the steel. Primer would only be added ontop of red lead/oxide if a third 'cosmetic' colored paint was required.
Essentially, i see no reason why any steel members would need anything other than a red lead/oxide coating if hidden from view.
Please forgive my ignorance if this is of no relevence or if i have missed something. I am just a simple....................
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1241534
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240917
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1031/pdf/OF2005_1031_508.pdf (PDF)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=239769
For starters. I am sure a good search with google scholar will help more.
Can't guarantee you can get all of them without a subscription, but I know a couple of them are free.
TAM
Thanks but i noticed no new very meaningful info for me...
I have analyzed the false red only chips at the electronic microscope: these contain Aluminum, Iron, oxygen and carbon in quite the same proportions as the true red/gray chips and these are very numerous in my samples while the red/gray one shoud be numerous according the article ! mine never produce molten iron when heated even up to 900°C! they are not two sided and the aspect is very different (not homogeous) from the one of the red part in the articles photos.
So my conviction is that my samples were falsified: the material of interest was removed and a kind of paint that can mimic efficiently the red/gray chips was put in place (many such chips) but the real ones were not removed with 100% efficiency since i was able to find at least a single one a few monthes ago.
I believe the control, manipulation and substitution must take place at the level of our post offices here in France. I noticed very suspect and systematic abnormal delays at my own post office.
So if you have new samples to send to me, you should pass them to someone that will give them to me directly ... (no email please ! )
I dont know if the falsification is from the criminals friends or some of the truthers who dont want me to be associated with this research...
Fred H-C
Fred;
Up until now your explanations and dialogue have seemed reasonable, and rational. Now, however, I think things are turning.
Are you suggesting that your samples had an "abundance" of the chips that Jones discusses, the alleged "Thermite" chips, but that someone purposely took your mail, opened it, removed these chips, and replaced them with "red only" chips that would not react like the original chips?
If this is your reasoning, then I am afraid I will have to consider your position, and paranoia on par with Jones et al, and unless something changes, the dialog ends here.
TAM
Fred;
Up until now your explanations and dialogue have seemed reasonable, and rational. Now, however, I think things are turning.
Are you suggesting that your samples had an "abundance" of the chips that Jones discusses, the alleged "Thermite" chips, but that someone purposely took your mail, opened it, removed these chips, and replaced them with "red only" chips that would not react like the original chips?
If this is your reasoning, then I am afraid I will have to consider your position, and paranoia on par with Jones et al, and unless something changes, the dialog ends here.
TAM
T.A.M
My samples are full of chips which have nothing to do with the chips described in the articles. These are almost perfect doubles:
1) same appearance on one face : same red color!
2) same range of sizes
3) same composition: Carbon, oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, Silicium in the same proportion
almost because
1) Dont produce molten iron even when heated to more than 900°C
2) Have the same chemical composition after being heated to more than 900°C
3) Not double sided: red /red rather than red/shiny grey
According to the articles the red/grey chips should be numerous while in my articles the
red/red chips are more numerous...so i'm afraid there are only two possible ways for understanding this:
1) The red-gray chips were completely invented or the th truthers were provided with
fake samples to deceive them
2) My red-red chips were added and the genuine red/gray ones removed...
I dont know which way to understand these facts is the most paranoiac one...probably you know better than me.
To be Honest i should also follow a little bit the first paranoia way:
If 911 was an inside job, its not a problem to make the common citizen believe that Al Qaeda did it. If i were one of the perpetrators i could even travel and give conferences in the USA and in Europe with wonderful powerpoints (the architectes and ingeniers one for instance) and movies (for instance the italian movie: Zero) showing that 911 was an inside job, just for fun and to make money... indeed people are totally under control through the control of the medias. The important thing if you do that is to be sure that there are enough (not so many) absurd or silly claims in your presentation so that any honest expert in the concerned fields can explain why your are just an idiot conspirationist....and you can be sure the subject will remain as exotic as the UFOs, for long...
Much more problematic is to also deceive intelligence agencies from other countries : impossible ! these have their experts and the collapse of WTC7 is much more than sufficient to convince them that there is something wrong with the official story. But another kind of deception can take place which goal would be to hide the exact type of secret technology that was used to bring down the towers. Nanothermite or another technology based on the understanding kept secret for years by militaries of the new physics behind cold fusion for example?
Many features, in particular pure iron spheroids which crackled surfaces cooled down very rapidly are also commonly seen in experiments involving very powerful electric discharges ( The new physics that occurs there is the same as behind the historical electrolysis experiment that have shown extra production of heat: in these micro-discharges are also involved, in the palladium porous structure). These discharges produce what is often called "strange radiations": nobody (at least among searchers working in public labs today) understands this physics and these objects. These were discovered by many searchers independently all over the world and given different names (ectons, micro lighting-balls, Electrum Validum...and of course strange radiations) : much bigger ones are also naturally produced by much more powerful electric discharges in the atmosphere: lighting balls.
Some time ago i believed powerful discharges was used at the WTC using capacitors. The discharges may have been triggered by the piezoelectric effect: as you can see in the USGS data: the girder coatings have Titanium but also Baryum and strontium and i think its very hard to understand the high levels of baryum and strontium (quite the same) in these coatings.
As you know high capacitors commonly use baryum titanate often mixed with strontium titanate. My understanding for a long time was that the weakening and superficial melting of the column was obtained thanks to these discharges and the very large fluxes of the strange radiations they produced heating them very efficiently. But i progressively gave up the idea because of the discoveries of nanothermite red/gray chips.
The problem is now that i cant find them so i can suspect again that nanothermite was completely invented to hide the other technology which secret is believed crucial (as you probably know it was demonstrated by a Russian team that the half life of Uranium radionucleides is modified in presence of the strange radiations so you can imagine why it is kept secret!).
Nanothermite or something else?:
For anybody in the USA reading my post and whishing to understand better what happened on 911, it's very important to realize that checking the red/gray chips hypothesis is something anybody can do at home: its straightforward!
If you personally know a new_Yorker who still has WTC dust contact him (independently, discretely, no email , no phone). Then you just need a small magnet , a needle, a 50 dollars microscope and a kiln (or know someone who is doing pottery or ceramics). Find the red/gray chip yourself, heat it yourself in your kiln, check yourself the appearance of the metallic microspheres at less than 500°C...and help me do the same.
This is crucial to help me choose between my two paranoias !!
best
Fred
De : Frédéric Henry-Couannier <fhenryco@yahoo.fr>
À : Gregg Roberts <groberts@ae911truth.org>; Frank Legge <flegge@iinet.net.au>
Cc : harrit@fys.ku.dk; Steven <hardevidence@gmail.com>; Keogh Justin <justin.keogh@gmail.com>; Larsen Brad <brlbu@sisna.com>; Ryan Kevin <kncryan@msn.com>; A Carson <azcarson@gmail.com>; Shane Geiger <shane.geiger@gmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 17 Juin 2009, 11h10mn 59s
Objet : Re : Re : Problem !
The most recent sample i received with nothing but red-only chips (or may be red/orange as Keven says) inside was from Steve White (collected in a loft at 18 Warren street).
I'm wondering how many among you did themselves the crucial ignition test and have noticed themselves the appearance of iron microspheres...please clarify
Best
F
