• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

RedIbis said:
You might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but where are you getting the chips to test?
Click to expand...

Miragememories said:
Excellent question.

MM
Click to expand...


Excellent answer:
It was mentioned earlier in the thread.

ETA after two posts below:
Comparisons of the dust/smoke particulate that settled inside the surrounding buildings and outside on the streets of southern New York City after the collapse of the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001.

Yiin LM, Millette JR, Vette A, Ilacqua V, Quan C, Gorczynski J, Kendall M, Chen LC, Weisel CP, Buckley B, Yang I, Lioy PJ.
Source

Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.

Abstract

The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, 2001, generated large amounts of dust and smoke that settled in the surrounding indoor and outdoor environments in southern Manhattan. Sixteen dust samples were collected from undisturbed locations inside two uncleaned buildings that were adjacent to Ground Zero. These samples were analyzed for morphology, metals, and organic compounds, and the results were compared with the previously reported outdoor WTC dust/smoke results. We also analyzed seven additional dust samples provided by residents in the local neighborhoods......
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15149040

Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001.
Click to expand...
Lioy PJ, Weisel CP, Millette JR, Eisenreich S, Vallero D, Offenberg J, Buckley B, Turpin B, Zhong M, Cohen MD, Prophete C, Yang I, Stiles R, Chee G, Johnson W, Porcja R, Alimokhtari S, Hale RC, Weschler C, Chen LC.
Source

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA. plioy@eohsi.rutgers.edu

Abstract

The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many workers, residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September 2001. Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001; these samples are representative of the generated material that settled immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of the two structures......
Click to expand...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12117648
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
You might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but where are you getting the chips to test?
Click to expand...

Jim and his lab have previously been involved in studies of WTC dust. I understand they have samples whose provenance is well documents and who have been sored with professional careever since they were retrieved. I expect Jim to provide details in the paper he'll eventually publish.

He is sorting out red-gray chips himself. I suspect in a similar fashion as Jones etc.

He said he'll preliminarily test them with Harrit e.al.'s methods, to ascertain that they are the same stuff as in the Bentham paper (XEDS spectra, SE- BSE-images in the 1µm range...), particularly chips a-d, before doing more in-depth analysis.
 
chrismohr said:
Day One Report: One $30 check.
Day two report: Nothing
Day three report: $100 from the South
$200 from the upper midwest
$50 from overseas via PayPal intermediary
$25 from overseas PayPal
$25 from the Midwest
$50 from New England
$50 from overseas via PayPal

Total so far: $530
Click to expand...

$20 US inbond as of today from Tacoma Washington.:)
 
RedIbis said:
You might have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but where are you getting the chips to test?
Click to expand...
It's OK with me RedIbis if you ask something that's already been answered. I'm lazy too and I admit it. I guess others have already answered your question. Sadly, Kevin Ryan is refusing to provide his samples, but some of these samples from Millette's collection are even closer to ground zero and some believe they have an even higher concentration of red-gray chips. What's frustrating about Kevin Ryan: for years he has complained that the establishment scientists never investigated the dust for thermitic material. Now Jim Millette comes along, and:

1.) He acknowledges they never looked specifically for thermitic material
2.) He plans to do a thorough study and has no pre-judgment about the outcome.
3.) He invites Kevin Ryan to a place at the table with the Big Boys and is willing to look at the red-gray chips KEVIN thinks have thermitic materials in them.
4.) He puts together the most thorough and careful protocol for this in history.

This would be a Halleluliah moment for someone who wants to have his research taken seriously, but Kevin adamantly refuses, saying Millette is "deceptive" in his past work and that I am "dishonest" for not revealing what I assumed he knew, that Millette has already studied WTC dust for the EPA in another context (not looking for thermitics, as Millette himself has acknowledged). RedIbis, I hope you will join what I call the Real Truthers who really want to know what's in that dust and support this (see post 1257).
 
chrismohr said:
It's OK with me RedIbis if you ask something that's already been answered. I'm lazy too and I admit it. I guess others have already answered your question. Sadly, Kevin Ryan is refusing to provide his samples, but some of these samples from Millette's collection are even closer to ground zero and some believe they have an even higher concentration of red-gray chips. What's frustrating about Kevin Ryan: for years he has complained that the establishment scientists never investigated the dust for thermitic material. Now Jim Millette comes along, and:

1.) He acknowledges they never looked specifically for thermitic material
2.) He plans to do a thorough study and has no pre-judgment about the outcome.
3.) He invites Kevin Ryan to a place at the table with the Big Boys and is willing to look at the red-gray chips KEVIN thinks have thermitic materials in them.
4.) He puts together the most thorough and careful protocol for this in history.

This would be a Halleluliah moment for someone who wants to have his research taken seriously, but Kevin adamantly refuses, saying Millette is "deceptive" in his past work and that I am "dishonest" for not revealing what I assumed he knew, that Millette has already studied WTC dust for the EPA in another context (not looking for thermitics, as Millette himself has acknowledged). RedIbis, I hope you will join what I call the Real Truthers who really want to know what's in that dust and support this (see post 1257).
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris, you've always been friendly and one of the few here that appears to be conducting research without rancor. My question was only specific, so if the study commences I would expect Jim to supply the provenance. A few quick points on your numbered items:

1) That's understandable. I wouldn't have expected them to at the time the study was done.

2) I don't understand this comments since a) I'm not sure that any scientist can research without any prejudgment.

3) I don't know enough about Ryan but the insinuation of your item suggests that what Ryan thinks isn't accurate, which would be a prejudgment. I hope that's your perspective and not Jim's.

4) That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

I don't know what a Truther is, let alone a Real Truther, so hopefully what commences are scientists who are interested in investigating the evidence with as little bias as possible, willing to follow the investigation whether it confirms their suspicions or takes them in an unexpected or even feared direction.
 
Hi all,

I have at least one more contribution coming in to me as "Pay Pal broker guy." If anyone else wants to contribute this way, please hit me up with a PM in the next few days. I'll send you my PayPal details, and then consolidate the PayPal contributions into one more check, which I'll send to Chris later this week.

If you want a reference before sending $ to an anonymous internet poster, you can check with Chris, who seems to have gotten my first check.
 
Miragememories said:
So are the "Real Truthers" different from your Nazi Truthers?

MM
Click to expand...
yes MM, VERY different. I have met both and they are worlds apart. A Real Truther (my term, I admit) really wants to know the truth and would support an independent study of the dust. Your potential interest in this study speaks well for you in this regard.
 
carlitos said:
Hi all,

I have at least one more contribution coming in to me as "Pay Pal broker guy." If anyone else wants to contribute this way, please hit me up with a PM in the next few days. I'll send you my PayPal details, and then consolidate the PayPal contributions into one more check, which I'll send to Chris later this week.

If you want a reference before sending $ to an anonymous internet poster, you can check with Chris, who seems to have gotten my first check.
Click to expand...
I DID get the first check, and look at how many posts this guy has done over the years!
 
RedIbis said:
Thanks Chris, you've always been friendly and one of the few here that appears to be conducting research without rancor. My question was only specific, so if the study commences I would expect Jim to supply the provenance. A few quick points on your numbered items:

1) That's understandable. I wouldn't have expected them to at the time the study was done.

2) I don't understand this comments since a) I'm not sure that any scientist can research without any prejudgment.

3) I don't know enough about Ryan but the insinuation of your item suggests that what Ryan thinks isn't accurate, which would be a prejudgment. I hope that's your perspective and not Jim's.

4) That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

I don't know what a Truther is, let alone a Real Truther, so hopefully what commences are scientists who are interested in investigating the evidence with as little bias as possible, willing to follow the investigation whether it confirms their suspicions or takes them in an unexpected or even feared direction.
Click to expand...
Hi RedIbis,
1) his statement that they didn't study thermitic material is a good place for him to start, and that's all he's looking for now.
2) True, but he can say honestly that he won't actually KNOW the outcome til;l he does the tests, which I was looking for in a researcher
3) Kevin et al DID the tests and published the results in the Bentham paper three years ago. I had asked Kevin to give us some red-gray chips from HIS supply which HE believed were thermitic. Kevin refused, so now Jim Millette will use chips he finds in his own WTC dust samples.
4) It is a very thorough protocol, with a laundry list of tests.
Hope this helps. Look at post 1257 now if you want to know more.
Chris
 
Let me be a little more of a spoil sport. By the way, it's much more interesting discussing with you guys, than truthers. You guys give proper responses and the discussion actually moves forward! Here goes.

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, sorry to say that. I started following the TM in 2006, researching the history and origins of the TM claims. There hasn't been a nail in a coffin for any theory, not one. The closest thing to a nail in a coffin has been the abandoning of "Larry Silverstein said pull it". That doesn't pop up often anymore. So why would this be the first true nail in a coffin of a truther conspiracy theory? Sadly it will not be. David Ray Griffin still denies the phone calls, despite being so completely wrong it hurts. Griffin still has a following, and to this day some people doubt the phone calls.

You yourself admit, that the top TM figures will not suddenly admit that they were in error all this time. That's exactly correct, they won't. That alone explains, why this will not be a nail in a coffin for anything. These same guys will continue pushing this theory, and these same guys will still have a following.

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are making the basic error here, in assuming that being a truther is based on rationality and science. TM leaders have been shown to have poor judgement for years. Their judgement on all other evidence has been shown equally dubious for years. Has that been of any help, has the TM suddenly become rational and disappeared because of poor judgement on evidence? No. Their beliefs are not based on rationality and critical thinking. Yours are, that's why you are not a truther. Understanding this difference is key to all this debate.

Oystein said:
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!
Click to expand...

None have lived up to your challenge, and the vision of the rest of your paragraph will not happen for the reasons I stated above.

Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sadly, it will not create much ripples nor doubt. No other work before this one has done it on any theory, and there has been plenty of work already.

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is this particular topic your sport, why do you have such an interest in these chips? That is what interests me. The guys who introduced you to these chips have never had credibility to begin with, so why go to such lengths to dig more into their crazy theories? I don't see you guys putting such effort on Judy Wood or space beams, so why this? Is it because this particular paper is quoted more, and has more following? That still doesn't mean it makes any more sense. But that sure gives the paper more the attention they (Jones, Gage, Ryan) live by. Their only interest is to keep the topic alive. And that they have achieved very well.

Oystein said:
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.
Click to expand...

I should clear one thing up. I didn't mean the hobby thing quite literally, as some of you have taken it. I know you guys have hobbies. It was just to show, that these people don't deserve the attention they get from you guys, your hobbies do. And photography can be damn expensive, but it sure is fun!

Thanks for being polite! I don't mean to diss you guys in any ways, just sharing my personal opinions. :)
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Hi, Ref:o) 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?
Click to expand...

It's a good hobby yes, I agree. I do that too. But as I explained in my post to Oystein, the frauds live by your hobby of keeping the insane theory alive. There comes a point, when a certain theory has been beaten to death. To me this one already has. Keeping it further alive only benefits the frauds.

Ivan Kminek said:
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.
Click to expand...

If your job is polymer chemistry, then you do have a special interest in this topic, and my sentence wasn't pointed to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom