• 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?

approximately what time frame would we be looking at before results can be feed back to us here? Are the results going to be posted in any sort of peer reviewed journal? lol you should send it to the journal of 9/11 studies and see if their peer reviewing would allow it :D
 
approximately what time frame would we be looking at before results can be feed back to us here? Are the results going to be posted in any sort of peer reviewed journal? lol you should send it to the journal of 9/11 studies and see if their peer reviewing would allow it :D

Time frame I don't know.

But yes, last week Chris quoted Jim as stating that he intends to publish the findings in a peer reviewed journal:
...Jim Millette wrote me that email ...

"[...] 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."
...

I don't know if it is good practice, or frowned upon, to publish the same article in two journals, but I think the idea of seconmdarily submitting the paper to JONES shall be fun :D They only had 3 articles in 2011 and 2 in 2010. Two of the 2011 paper debunked another truther faction (CIT), and one was a political opinion piece. The last time they produced anything actually in support of any truther theory was nearly 2 years ago. Maybe JONES will be turned into a debunking site? :D
 
Time frame I don't know.

But yes, last week Chris quoted Jim as stating that he intends to publish the findings in a peer reviewed journal:


I don't know if it is good practice, or frowned upon, to publish the same article in two journals, but I think the idea of seconmdarily submitting the paper to JONES shall be fun :D They only had 3 articles in 2011 and 2 in 2010. Two of the 2011 paper debunked another truther faction (CIT), and one was a political opinion piece. The last time they produced anything actually in support of any truther theory was nearly 2 years ago. Maybe JONES will be turned into a debunking site? :D
We know that Jim Millette intends to publish a paper. But before the paper even comes out, I will get his report with the data. I'm going to ask him what the protocol is for releasing his report before the paper comes out, but since we (at least a dozen people) paid for this report I would assume we can at least post it here. He may ask we don't try to get it published before his paper comes out. I don't know the time frame for any of this, except that I believe I'll be able to give him the official go-ahead by next week, thanks to the generous help of so many people. I imagine the fully peer-reviewed paper will take several months, but before that his formal presentation will be taking place before forensic experts. Who knows, maybe I will be allowed in on that. Since my sister and her family live near his lab, I may even see if I can make an excuse to fly out for it!
 
Kevin Ryan tests his own nanthermites

By the way, do you all know that Kevin Ryan and Niels Harritt have done further tests on nanothermites since the Bentham Paper? Here is an excerpt from one of Kevin's emails to me with a citation to something else they've put out there since the Bentham paper:


"I've actually prepared nanothermites of two diffferent formulations and done some photographic comparisons of red chips and nanothermite ignition residues. You can find that at this link.
http://911blogger.com/node/18935

"I'm still working on a paper that examines my nanothermite preparations and chips from WTC dust samples. My work leads me to suspect that many of the red chips found in the WTC dust are residues of nanothermite ignitions. Some are also un-ignite nanothermite, as described in the "Active Thermitic" paper.

"Here's a new, short video showing the production and ignition of a batch of nanothermite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O66UyGNrmSI
 
Oh cripes! The first link is from december 2008 - has anything come of it? In it, Kevin promises a "scientific" publishing. Only Harrit e.al. (april 2009) followed, which doesn't mention reacted thermitic material at all. But it sounds now as if Kevin is aware that the chips are not all the same material, doesn't it? He should think one step further and trash Harrit e.al., which works from the premise that they are analysing all the same stuff. And they all produce microspheres? I guess that means microspheres result from whatever they do to analyse the chips - such as heating and burning them for FSM's sake! - and not from a thermitic reaction?

The youtube video, although uploaded only half a year ago, can't be recent: It refers to Harrit e.al. as the "most recent" info on the subject, which was over 2 years old at the time of upload, and his experiments with self-made nanothermite are mentioned in the 12/2008 article at 911blogger.

So nothing new in the state of Denmark!

Why hasn't Kevin properly published any of this in the 2.5 years that have passed, after all the work he'd already done?
ETA 1: I doubt that any of this has actually been done since april 2009.


ETA 2: Last publication, other than Harrit e.al., by Kevin seems to be this at JONES from july 2008:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
Seems they had then already deternined that nano-thermite must be found ;)

ETA 3: Ohhh and at the end of the video, where Kevin "explodes" his nanothermite: Please notice two facts here:
  1. He's filled his beaker with nanothermite about 1cm high, that's 10mm or 10,000µm. Compare that to the thickness of the red layers from the dust which is on the order of 20µm: Kebin's layer is about 500 times as thick as what they found in the dust
  2. His nanothermite, despite being 500 times as thick, did not even break the glass beaker!
 
Last edited:
A comment of interest from an old Kevin Ryan email to me he sent last spring:

- The red-gray chips tested do not withstand 650 C, do not have Zinc, and don't dissolve in an organic solvent (but known paint chips do). Other analyses, not yet published, also indicate that the red chips are not paint. I have WTC paint samples and can tell you that, in addition to these facts, the paint looks nothing like the red-gray chips.

That's funny because the photos say otherwise.
 
Time frame I don't know.

But yes, last week Chris quoted Jim as stating that he intends to publish the findings in a peer reviewed journal:


I don't know if it is good practice, or frowned upon, to publish the same article in two journals, but I think the idea of seconmdarily submitting the paper to JONES shall be fun :D They only had 3 articles in 2011 and 2 in 2010. Two of the 2011 paper debunked another truther faction (CIT), and one was a political opinion piece. The last time they produced anything actually in support of any truther theory was nearly 2 years ago. Maybe JONES will be turned into a debunking site? :D

He should get it in Bentham:D
 
Chris: I spotted this interesting video about five months ago.
As I remember, there were some points to be mentioned:

- It is remarkable that Kevin Ryan was able to prepare quite easily this Al/Fe2O3/Viton well-functioning superthermite using published procedures. Perhaps Ryan should earn his money preparing thermites for some befriend islamistic terrorists:cool: Anyway, it seems to me that any patented and publicly known superthermites could be hardly used for "supersecret" CD of WTC.

- There is only macroscopic photo of the prepared unburned superthermite in the video. In contrast, microscopic photos of this burned thermite are available at the end of video and they basically don't differ very much, eg., from my microphoto of the burned Laclede paint imitation http://bobule100.rajce.idnes.cz/LI1epoxid/#LI1_16epi_04.jpg . A microscopic world (including world of burned things) is simply very treacherous for untrained eyes and many objects with completely different origin can look similar. (And I think that the same objections are valid also for Kevin Ryan's slide show "which is which?" you linked.)

- By far the most interesting for me could be infrared (IR) spectra shown at the very end of the video (time 9:28). Unfortunately, this picture is extremely blurred even for truthers way how to present proofs, the scale on x-axis is almost unreadable and it is not very clear what is what. It seems that there is also an IR spectrum of some nonspecified chip or what from WTC dust ("sample JM12"). When I compared it to the published IR spectra of epoxy resin (after correction/sharpening of this picture in IrfanView), there was no good match, as I remember. (characteristic IR peaks of common polymers can be find e.g. here:))
 
Last edited:
[*]His nanothermite, despite being 500 times as thick, did not even break the glass beaker!
[/LIST]

I posted the same remark in some Czech site with this video, but truthers objected that for destroying materials efficiently, ignited thermites must be somehow confined in some box or so and their burning somehow vectored to the material. And this is basically right, I think. Of course, it can work only if the charge of thermite is really massive.
 
Last edited:
"I've actually prepared nanothermites of two diffferent formulations and done some photographic comparisons of red chips and nanothermite ignition residues."

In other words another "It looks like" arguement about as convincing as "WTC 7 looks like a CD"

He should get it in Bentham:D

Bend it like Bentham perhaps?:D

did not even break the glass beaker
I posted the same remark in some Czech site with this video, but truthers objected that for destroying materials efficiently, ignited thermites must be somehow confined in some box or so and their burning somehow vectored to the material. And this is basically right, I think. Of course, it can work only if the charge of thermite is really massive.

I did not see the video but if it was in a beaker then it was 'confined' in at least two dimensions.
 
In other words another "It looks like" arguement about as convincing as "WTC 7 looks like a CD"



Bend it like Bentham perhaps?:D



I did not see the video but if it was in a beaker then it was 'confined' in at least two dimensions.

If your explosive requires full confinement to be effective, then it is not a very useful explosibe indeed. This nanothermite is about as destructive as Mozzarella cheese when it goes bad in its plastic bag, and as dangerous as a chestnut whose shell you forgot to cut before putting it on the stove.
 
If your explosive requires full confinement to be effective, then it is not a very useful explosibe indeed. This nanothermite is about as destructive as Mozzarella cheese when it goes bad in its plastic bag, and as dangerous as a chestnut whose shell you forgot to cut before putting it on the stove.
In the interest of fairness, I think this video succeeds in proving otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

(start at 7:26 to skip the usual boring crap)
 
In the interest of fairness, I think this video succeeds in proving otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q

(start at 7:26 to skip the usual boring crap)

Can you give me the exact time stamp for the video where a destructive explosion is shown?
Cole is only melting stuff.
Ryan tries to convince his followers that his nanothermite resulted in explosive production of gas. Well, so does my Mozzarella and Chestnut.
 
Can you give me the exact time stamp for the video where a destructive explosion is shown?
Cole is only melting stuff.
Ryan tries to convince his followers that his nanothermite resulted in explosive production of gas. Well, so does my Mozzarella and Chestnut.
Sorry, I was referring only to the destructive power, not the explosive one.
 
Chris: I spotted this interesting video about five months ago.
As I remember, there were some points to be mentioned:

- It is remarkable that Kevin Ryan was able to prepare quite easily this Al/Fe2O3/Viton well-functioning superthermite using published procedures. Perhaps Ryan should earn his money preparing thermites for some befriend islamistic terrorists:cool: Anyway, it seems to me that any patented and publicly known superthermites could be hardly used for "supersecret" CD of WTC.

I assume you are referring to this video.


What he produces is nowhere near the same color as Jones and Harrit's paint chips, nor does it contain any form of silcon.

Epic FAIL.
 
Where did you get your samples? What is your chain of custody for the samples?

Here is my official request for funds to analyze the WTC dust. To summarize, after three months of investigating this, the best person I found for the job is James R. Millette, Ph.D. of MVA Scientific Consultants. He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis. He promises an objective study: "At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. 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... I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization."

Dr. Millette continues to receive input from forensic experts as well as from me and my JREF companions. He has already found red-gray chips using stereomicroscopy and has created initial spectographic analyses of some of the red-gray chips in his lab's possession. He plans to do, at a minimum, a replication of many of the experiments already done in the original Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al Bentham study as well as additional testing by PLM, SEM, TEM and FTIR after sample treatment. I am thinking other tests may be added to the protocol. We will get a full report and he will also make it public.

Chemist and 9/11 Truth activist Kevin Ryan has refused to provide samples of red-gray chips he believes are thermitic, or even to sign off on the chips Dr. Millette would provide. He believes Dr. Millette's past work with the EPA and other dust studies were deceptive and that his results would not be objective. Dr. Millette has expressed confidence that he can find red-gray chips that are a scientifically valid match for the chips studied in the Bentham paper. I am confident of Dr. Millette's scientific integrity and knowledge. He has taken a strong interest in this subject and plans to do a very thorough job. He has never once hinted at any prejudice against the thermitic materials hypothesis and consistently says he has no opinion until he has thoroughly analyzed the data.

Because of his strong interest in the subject, he is charging only $1000 for several thousand of dollars worth of tests. I am now asking all people of good will on "both sides of the aisle" to make the necessary contributions to have this work move forward.

Please write a check or money order payable to Classical Guide Inc. and mail to Chris Mohr, Foothills Chapel, 1950 Ford St Golden CO 80401. This is not tax-deductible. Leave me an email address and a snail-mail return address so I can acknowledge receipt of your contribution and mail you back your check if we can't raise the necessary funds (though I believe we can). Whatever you pitch in will be kept private unless you tell others on the JREF thread how much you pitched in. Once we get $1000 in checks, I'll deposit them all and give Jim Millette the "Go" sign. If you have any questions you can send me a private message right here on JREF.

Thanks all and Happy New Year!

Chris Mohr

Where did you get your samples?

What is your chain of custody?
 
So just a few thoughts I had on the video. I see that he is able to vertically cut steel in quite a bright fashion. I mean, that stuff is really bright, if that was happening on multiple floors you would be able to see it easily, that place would like like a fire works show. They have pictures of the "blow outs" from the thermite going off, wouldn't those pictures easily show the extreme flash from the explosion? Nothing on that video happened without an extremely bright flash, and then we get 1 still shot of 1 corner to point it out. Then some random commentary about how the fires were in a few windows, then not in a few. I'm no firefighter but I do know that fire is random. It doesn't glow with the same color constantly through the entire place it's burning.
 
Where did you get your samples?

What is your chain of custody?
Jim Millette did contract work and he and others at the lab where he works did at least 2 WTC dust studies I know of (around 2003?), one of them for the EPA (I think looking for environmental hazards). As part of these studies his lab received several dust samples with an ironclad chain of custody from EPA at least.
 

Back
Top Bottom