Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Major Good News re the Dust Study
Hi all,
I'll let you know early next week how much money we've raised; unknown sums are now going through the Postal system and PayPals internationally.
Here's the Major Good News. When Jim Millette wrote me that email assuring me of his competence and integrity, he added a phrase that shows he plans on going far beyond what we are contracting him for. It also helps me understand his motivation for doing thousands of dollars worth of tests for $1000. I didn't include this at first because I would not hold him to his stated intention, but on second thought I think everyone deserves to know what I edited out when I first quoted him in an earlier post:
"Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out." The boldfacing is mine.
So, depending on whose side you're on, this will be either the first or the second ever peer-reviewed study of the WTC dust which focuses on the question of active thermitic material. Boys and girls, if this happens, it will be by far the most serious scientific study of this question since the Bentham paper first came out. Yes, I'm very excited, and am crossing my fingers in the hopes that enough money will come in because this I really want to see!
Hi all,
I'll let you know early next week how much money we've raised; unknown sums are now going through the Postal system and PayPals internationally.
Here's the Major Good News. When Jim Millette wrote me that email assuring me of his competence and integrity, he added a phrase that shows he plans on going far beyond what we are contracting him for. It also helps me understand his motivation for doing thousands of dollars worth of tests for $1000. I didn't include this at first because I would not hold him to his stated intention, but on second thought I think everyone deserves to know what I edited out when I first quoted him in an earlier post:
"Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out." The boldfacing is mine.
So, depending on whose side you're on, this will be either the first or the second ever peer-reviewed study of the WTC dust which focuses on the question of active thermitic material. Boys and girls, if this happens, it will be by far the most serious scientific study of this question since the Bentham paper first came out. Yes, I'm very excited, and am crossing my fingers in the hopes that enough money will come in because this I really want to see!
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Carlitos and DGM both have PayPal accounts and are running money through for me from people outside the US. The cashier's check to Classical Guide is fine too.
At $50 average we'll need 20 donors and I don't know if we'll be there in this first round, but we'll see next week!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I extend my invitation to anyone that wants me to help with the PayPal transfer. I have already done so for a "truther", if anyone wants to contact me with this common cause, just shoot me a PM.
Thanks again Chris.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
You gotta be freakin' kidding me. We're STILL doing this?!?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
This whole testing thing has nothing to do with "truthers".
Read the thread, I think you'll understand.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I will give you that but, there is no way we would spend our own money to test something only on the premise to prove a "moron" wrong. The jist of this whole testing is for our own knowledge. If we gave a crap what the "truthers" thought, we'd care that Kevin Ryan wouldn't consent.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
You sound just like my wife, and of course she's right!!! I'm an addict, and I really want to know the results of this test. And this deal Jim Millette is offering us is like a super duper Groupon for science nerds. But in the narrower sense, "we're STILL doing this??" is invalid... unless we've already organized a fully peer-reviewed study of the thermitic dust before. This is us getting off our computer chairs and actually doing something concrete. Am I missing something? Have we already organized this study? In the meantime, my wife invites all other wives of obsessed debunkers into a new support group she is organizing
ozeco41
Philosopher
Advice for those who dig themselves into a hole...
....stop digging and hope nobody notices.
Are you confused as well?
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
I side with aggle-rithm and dog town here.
None of you would even be discussing this thermite crap if it wasn't for Steven Jones. He started pushing this nonsense in 2005 when he was pimped by the likes of Alex Jones and David Ray Griffin, who wanted to get a bigger following themselves. Jones seemed "scientific" and they thought he had "authority" to speak convincingly about the outlandish thermite crap, that boosted the interest in 911truth. It sure sounded exiting! So then come loose change and all that. And suddenly Jones and thermite are at the forefront of 911truth.
Let's remember what really got Jones into thermite. It was computer engineer Jim Hoffman's work, and more precisely the "evidence of molten metal" like this photo:
Or this photo:
Of course, in the first photo these are just workers using a bright light, and in the second photo these are iron workers clearing the site.
So to sum it all up. Jones was gullible and got lured into 911truth by reading Jim Hoffman's site. Then he interpreted a bright light and iron workers as evidence of hot and molten metal. Then he decided to "be an expert" and put his own little input into 911truth, and decided that the molten metal could be evidence of thermite, and put together a paper with some exiting and scientific sounding crap about a thermite. He got fired back in 2006 for that crap, so after that all he had was 911truth. He can't back off, so all he can do is push the thermite theories, and try to remain on top of thing by publishing more crap (nanothemite crap) and get more fools to join in.
And now in 2012, 7 years after Jones first did his magic, people are putting together independent experiments of WTC dust. It's completely unbelievable, how far this can go.
I know you are not doing this just to disprove truthers. Kevin Ryan is a prime example of what happens. The high profile truthers just ignore whatever results you'll get, unless it suits their agenda. They'll find their way around the results, they always have. Most truthers will just follow their lead, and ignore the results. Some individuals may be convinced, but not a large percentage. 911truth is not about science, it has never been. 911truth is about believing 911 was an inside job, and accepting any evidence in support of that, and ignoring any evidence against that. That's what it has always been about. Some individuals may differ from that, but they are not bound to be truthers for long anyway.
A hobby? Maybe. If your hobby is to investigate the ideas of a fraud and his interpretation of a flash light.
To learn more? Learn more about something more useful than thermite. Come on, how many people have anything to do with thermite, other than discussing it in some 911 sites.
I'm sorry if I sounded blunt. To me it just seems amazing how this just goes on and on. People seem obsessed, and unable to let go of that crap.
In the wise words of the great Gravy aka Mark Roberts. Get a hobby, go out more, get out of this 911 crap for a while. It worked for him, and he was the best! Greets to Gravy if he still reads this subforum.
And as an endnote, everyone is of course entitled to do whatever they want.
This was an outburst of a former active debunker.
Thanks for reading and a happy 2012!
None of you would even be discussing this thermite crap if it wasn't for Steven Jones. He started pushing this nonsense in 2005 when he was pimped by the likes of Alex Jones and David Ray Griffin, who wanted to get a bigger following themselves. Jones seemed "scientific" and they thought he had "authority" to speak convincingly about the outlandish thermite crap, that boosted the interest in 911truth. It sure sounded exiting! So then come loose change and all that. And suddenly Jones and thermite are at the forefront of 911truth.
Let's remember what really got Jones into thermite. It was computer engineer Jim Hoffman's work, and more precisely the "evidence of molten metal" like this photo:
Or this photo:
Of course, in the first photo these are just workers using a bright light, and in the second photo these are iron workers clearing the site.
So to sum it all up. Jones was gullible and got lured into 911truth by reading Jim Hoffman's site. Then he interpreted a bright light and iron workers as evidence of hot and molten metal. Then he decided to "be an expert" and put his own little input into 911truth, and decided that the molten metal could be evidence of thermite, and put together a paper with some exiting and scientific sounding crap about a thermite. He got fired back in 2006 for that crap, so after that all he had was 911truth. He can't back off, so all he can do is push the thermite theories, and try to remain on top of thing by publishing more crap (nanothemite crap) and get more fools to join in.
And now in 2012, 7 years after Jones first did his magic, people are putting together independent experiments of WTC dust. It's completely unbelievable, how far this can go.
I know you are not doing this just to disprove truthers. Kevin Ryan is a prime example of what happens. The high profile truthers just ignore whatever results you'll get, unless it suits their agenda. They'll find their way around the results, they always have. Most truthers will just follow their lead, and ignore the results. Some individuals may be convinced, but not a large percentage. 911truth is not about science, it has never been. 911truth is about believing 911 was an inside job, and accepting any evidence in support of that, and ignoring any evidence against that. That's what it has always been about. Some individuals may differ from that, but they are not bound to be truthers for long anyway.
A hobby? Maybe. If your hobby is to investigate the ideas of a fraud and his interpretation of a flash light.
To learn more? Learn more about something more useful than thermite. Come on, how many people have anything to do with thermite, other than discussing it in some 911 sites.
I'm sorry if I sounded blunt. To me it just seems amazing how this just goes on and on. People seem obsessed, and unable to let go of that crap.
In the wise words of the great Gravy aka Mark Roberts. Get a hobby, go out more, get out of this 911 crap for a while. It worked for him, and he was the best! Greets to Gravy if he still reads this subforum.
And as an endnote, everyone is of course entitled to do whatever they want.
This was an outburst of a former active debunker.Thanks for reading and a happy 2012!
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
I too find it curious that one would try to disprove the findings of a joke "paper" that didn't even prove what they said it did.................
Only the stupid and insane still believe any of the twoofer woo and as NIST and others have shown no matter how clear the science is it can't overcome what is to all intents and purposes a religious faith.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I agree that ni new tests are needed to show that Harrit e.al. did not find thermite. Their own data gives testimony to that.
But to know this, you have to actually understand some of the chemistry and chemical physics behind their methods. Many truthers lack that understanding[1], and so do many rational people. So truthers generally put their faith on four pillars:
Having this study published done by a real expert in this kind of physical-chemical analysis, published in a real science journal, and with the results we expect, should put a nail in the coffin of the thermite theory.
And here is what follows:
For the past 2.5 years, Harrit's and Jones's thermite paper may have been the single most-referred piece of supposed evidence in all of the truth movement. Many of the TM leaders have invested their faith in it. If it turns out one and for all that they were all wrong, the inevitable conclusion is that these TM leaders have poor judgement when it comes to assessing the quality of evidence. With their major asset blown to pieces, one must ask if their judgement on all other evidence is not equally dubious.
This is in line with a challenge I have often tried on truthers, but none ever lived up to it: "If you believe there is a lot of good evidence for your inside job theory, then pick the one claim that you feel is your strongest such evidence, and we'll debate whether it a) is relevant b) is true c) logically implies what you think it implies. If what you feel is your strongest evidence turns out to not in fact be evidence for your overall theory at all, I submit you have no evidence at all". In this case, if a major portion of the TM regarded "ATM" as their best piece of evidence for CD, or close to it, despite us debunkers warning them of the shortcomings since days after it was published, then destroying "ATM" in one go should also reduce all other claims and supposed evidence of these truthers to a status of "highly suspicious". Because it's not as if Harrit e.al. defrauded them with falsified data or dubious material - all the reasons to doubt this supposedly "best evidence" have been before them for years!
We will not get the authors of that Bentham crap paper to retract, nor will Gage or other top figures suddenly admit they have been in error all this time. But like Chris says: It will surely create ripples and doubts among the top followers. I am thinking of maybe contacting some of AE911T's top "engineers", show them the study, and ask for commentary independent of AE911T editorials. For example: We have Marc Basile's "independent" confirmation of Harrit's results - we learn from Marc that at most 5% of the red layer could possibly be thermitic. Now we will learn that much closer to 0% is thermitic. I wonder what Marc has to say if a fellow chemist shows him data that probes all the Al is bound and none is elemental?
Now, my personal motivation, and the topic of this thread, is to figure out what material these red-gray chips a-d really are. We have a theory that they are LaClede standard primer paint (i.e. pigments of iron oxide, aluminium silicate and strontium chromate in a matrix of cured amine epoxy) on oxidized and spalled-off structural steel, most usually A242 (iron oxide with traces of manganese). The only data we have to argue our case is the data from Harrit e.al. and from Basile, and maybe that of HenryCo. Some of that data is helpful, but it's not fully conclusive yet, in my opinion. I hope to get from Jim data of better quality, especially about chemical bonds and some more on the nature of the organic matrix.
Why? Well, it's a sport. A hobby. I now donated a dollar amount whose order of magnitude is well in line with what I pay anually on other hobbies, such a playing guitar, singing in a choir, or swimming and inline skating, and a lot less than what I pay for photography.
[1] There is no shame in not fully understanding particular areas of science, Chris Mohr openly admits to that, and I, too, do not fully understand all of the things discussed in this very thread, just enough to thoroughly debunk "Active Thermitic material...".
But to know this, you have to actually understand some of the chemistry and chemical physics behind their methods. Many truthers lack that understanding[1], and so do many rational people. So truthers generally put their faith on four pillars:
- The supposed scientific credentials of the Bentham authors
- The supposed reputation of a supposedly peer-reviewed journal article
- The assertion that no peer-reviewed article has yet refuted Harrit e.al.
- The hope that somehow thermitic material is in line with their preconceived conclusions of CD
Having this study published done by a real expert in this kind of physical-chemical analysis, published in a real science journal, and with the results we expect, should put a nail in the coffin of the thermite theory.
And here is what follows:
For the past 2.5 years, Harrit's and Jones's thermite paper may have been the single most-referred piece of supposed evidence in all of the truth movement. Many of the TM leaders have invested their faith in it. If it turns out one and for all that they were all wrong, the inevitable conclusion is that these TM leaders have poor judgement when it comes to assessing the quality of evidence. With their major asset blown to pieces, one must ask if their judgement on all other evidence is not equally dubious.
This is in line with a challenge I have often tried on truthers, but none ever lived up to it: "If you believe there is a lot of good evidence for your inside job theory, then pick the one claim that you feel is your strongest such evidence, and we'll debate whether it a) is relevant b) is true c) logically implies what you think it implies. If what you feel is your strongest evidence turns out to not in fact be evidence for your overall theory at all, I submit you have no evidence at all". In this case, if a major portion of the TM regarded "ATM" as their best piece of evidence for CD, or close to it, despite us debunkers warning them of the shortcomings since days after it was published, then destroying "ATM" in one go should also reduce all other claims and supposed evidence of these truthers to a status of "highly suspicious". Because it's not as if Harrit e.al. defrauded them with falsified data or dubious material - all the reasons to doubt this supposedly "best evidence" have been before them for years!
We will not get the authors of that Bentham crap paper to retract, nor will Gage or other top figures suddenly admit they have been in error all this time. But like Chris says: It will surely create ripples and doubts among the top followers. I am thinking of maybe contacting some of AE911T's top "engineers", show them the study, and ask for commentary independent of AE911T editorials. For example: We have Marc Basile's "independent" confirmation of Harrit's results - we learn from Marc that at most 5% of the red layer could possibly be thermitic. Now we will learn that much closer to 0% is thermitic. I wonder what Marc has to say if a fellow chemist shows him data that probes all the Al is bound and none is elemental?
Now, my personal motivation, and the topic of this thread, is to figure out what material these red-gray chips a-d really are. We have a theory that they are LaClede standard primer paint (i.e. pigments of iron oxide, aluminium silicate and strontium chromate in a matrix of cured amine epoxy) on oxidized and spalled-off structural steel, most usually A242 (iron oxide with traces of manganese). The only data we have to argue our case is the data from Harrit e.al. and from Basile, and maybe that of HenryCo. Some of that data is helpful, but it's not fully conclusive yet, in my opinion. I hope to get from Jim data of better quality, especially about chemical bonds and some more on the nature of the organic matrix.
Why? Well, it's a sport. A hobby. I now donated a dollar amount whose order of magnitude is well in line with what I pay anually on other hobbies, such a playing guitar, singing in a choir, or swimming and inline skating, and a lot less than what I pay for photography.
[1] There is no shame in not fully understanding particular areas of science, Chris Mohr openly admits to that, and I, too, do not fully understand all of the things discussed in this very thread, just enough to thoroughly debunk "Active Thermitic material...".
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Hi, Ref
) I think that investigating the ideas of a well-known frauds is a quite good hobby. Isn't it actually what JREF people are supposed to do here? Sorry, but I personally don't like your second paragraph. We have not been discussing here only "thermites", but many other issues of material science. And, thanks to this thread, I have been forced to learn many new things even in polymer chemistry, which is actually my job for more than 25 years. You may be not interested in those technical issues but let us to decide what we consider as "learning" in this matter.
sheeplesnshills Just denoting truthers as stupid and insane couldn't bring anything really useful, as is apparent from many threads on JREF.
I think that we have a quite unique chance to systematically and factually falsify one of the strongest truthers meme, which has been allegedly supported even with some science. And if we have this real chance (now thanks to the enthusiasm of Jim Millette), why not to grasp it? It is (at least to me) much more useful than endless disputations on other places.
Last edited:
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
There are still twoofers trying to get liberal radio listeners stirred up about a government cover-up.
(I think they are mostly Paulbots. They did make up a large segment of WeAreChange during the 2008 elections.)
Every time the subject of 9/11 comes up on liberal talk shows, count on some lunatic calling in to inform the host that "active thermitic material" was found in the dust.
It would be nice if these liberal talkers could see a paper refuting Chucklenuts and the failed European chemist. They would know to cut the looneys off with a simple "They found PAINT."
(I think they are mostly Paulbots. They did make up a large segment of WeAreChange during the 2008 elections.)
Every time the subject of 9/11 comes up on liberal talk shows, count on some lunatic calling in to inform the host that "active thermitic material" was found in the dust.
It would be nice if these liberal talkers could see a paper refuting Chucklenuts and the failed European chemist. They would know to cut the looneys off with a simple "They found PAINT."