• 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?

Of course, RedIbis's skepticism of the provenance of Jim's samples is valid - in the very general sense that we shoukd always be critical about evidence.

But I suggest that we don't Poison the Well before we see what Jim actually has to show!

Remember that many critics of Harrit e.al. have voiced skepticism about their samples - and indeed these "government independent" samples have been collected and stored for years by non-scientists without the benefit of a scientific protocol that documents the custody and takes care of proper handling to avoid contamination and degradation. Yet I have always maintained that we should assume good faith about these samples.

Being skeptical means looking for evidence that something is wrong, but when we don't find any such evidence, we ought to assume good faith and procede with the study.
The same now with Jim: Yes, by all means be skeptical and look actively for evidence that the samples are not what Jim says they are!

I think eventually the answer about credibility lies in the study results: If Jim finds red-gray chips with the same characteristics as those in Jones's four samples, we have good reason to assume that the provenance is valid.
I have argued the same thing about Jones's samples' provenance: The proof that Harrit e.al. did not tamper with or plant the dust particles, but that they are indeed from WTC collapse dust, lies in the fact of their data: That all their data points to various paint formulations rather than thermite. If they had wanted to fake the study, they surely would have made sure that the data does in fact indicate thermite.



So to sum up: Let's go into this with good faith and let Jim do his work. Once his paper is out, dig your teeth into it and give him hell as best as you can!
 
RedIbis said:
I'm going to stick my toe in these shark infested waters with full knowledge that what I'm about to post will bring on a spitstorm of vitriol.

Why is it assumed that a chain of custody from the EPA is ironclad? How do you know Millette has access to the samples just because he participated in the study? This is the same EPA that was convinced by the Bush White House to lie about the hazards of continuing to work at Ground Zero. Just because the agency is gov't related does not make them necessarily trustworthy. They absolutely have a motive for providing clean samples whether or not the provenance can be documented.

Forgive my skepticism, but analyzing material with a documented provenance that did not come from a gov't agency would be far more convincing.

Have at it guys. I've chummed the waters with pleny of red meat.
Click to expand...

face palm. If you ever applied the same standards to your hero Jones, we'd know that you were doing something other than trolling.
 
RedIbis said:
Nope. Those who provided the samples provided sworn affadavits or videotaped testimony.
Click to expand...

CITATION NEEDED.

A sworn affidavit or videotaped testimony is reliable only where it is done under the penalty of perjury and subject to cross examination.

But Red has already rejected the paper. Open minded Red.

Still waiting for the answers to the questions in my sig, sport.
 
Oystein said:
Of course, RedIbis's skepticism of the provenance of Jim's samples is valid - in the very general sense that we shoukd always be critical about evidence.

[/B]
Click to expand...

General sense? I'm sure you wouldn't be so forgiving with a Twoofy paper. Skepticism should be based on the strictest standards for evidence.
 
Please, everybody, focus!

Do NOT discuss the chain of custody of the Harrit-samples - that's pretty much off-topic here! Remember the OP?
Oystein said:
...I think it is best to keep this in a separate thread, if everyone could agree to not debating the Harrit-paper as such!

So please do not repeat any of the discussions we had before about
- why the red-grey chips are or aren't thermitic
- why they are or aren't all the same material
- if anything was CDed on 9/11
etc.

The topic here is very limited: If the red-gray chips analysed by Harrit, Jones e.al. are paint, but not the twin tower steel primer Tnemec, what paint are they?

...
Click to expand...



Please control your urge to fire off knee-jerk reactions just because no-claimer RedIbis is in da house!

I hope it is obvious to everybody here that of course we will review the chain of custody critically.
I hope it is equally obvious to everybody here that we will not poison the well!

If anybody disagress with the two statements above, feel free to comment. If you agree, I kindly ask you to indicate agreement by being silent.


Thank you.
 
RedIbis said:
Nope. Those who provided the samples provided sworn affadavits or videotaped testimony.
Click to expand...

DGM said:
So it would be OK with you if this was done for this study?
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
Please, everybody, focus!

Do NOT discuss the chain of custody of the Harrit-samples - that's pretty much off-topic here! Remember the OP?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Chris brought up the chain of custody and that was not flagged as "off topic".

RedIbis claims that the fact that Jones/Harrets chip sources "swore" to them was good (as far as this "truther" is concerned). Does this proof stand as universal to all chips including this study?

RedIbis did not answer. I think we can take that as his answer. How about other "truthers".

This "chain of custody" is a serious point for the whole study (which I think has changed the thrust of this thread).
 
Last edited:
Hi RedIbis,

I agree with Oystein that an extensive argument about the authenticity of the dust samples is premature. You can start a new thread where everyone is invited to discuss the validity of all dust samples from everywhere, but bickering about this here is not the province of this thread. It WILL be part of the peer review I am sure. I say move this discussion somewhere else and have at it if it's important you fight this out now before the paper is even out.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi RedIbis,

I agree with Oystein that an extensive argument about the authenticity of the dust samples is premature. You can start a new thread where everyone is invited to discuss the validity of all dust samples from everywhere, but bickering about this here is not the province of this thread. It WILL be part of the peer review I am sure. I say move this discussion somewhere else and have at it if it's important you fight this out now before the paper is even out.
Click to expand...

Didn't you ask the truthers for samples of their dust to test? I thought I saw that mentioned.
 
chrismohr said:
I did ask Kevin Ryan for a few red-gray chips which he believes are thermitic. He refused.
Click to expand...
MM yes the reason I provided for Kevin's refusal was because Jim Millette and the independent lab he works at has done prior research on the dust for the EPA which Kevin Ryan considers "deceptive." He never told me why he considered it deceptive except to say that this dust study didn't talk about the iron spheres; he linked me to an article and neither Jim nor I can understand what is deceptive about it.
 
DGM said:
Chris brought up the chain of custody and that was not flagged as "off topic".

RedIbis claims that the fact that Jones/Harrets chip sources "swore" to them was good (as far as this "truther" is concerned). Does this proof stand as universal to all chips including this study?

RedIbis did not answer. I think we can take that as his answer. How about other "truthers".

This "chain of custody" is a serious point for the whole study (which I think has changed the thrust of this thread).
Click to expand...

Yes. The chain of custody for the new study by Jim and with Jim's samples is absolutely a fair topic in this thread. I just recommend that we put that topic on hold as long as we don't have any facts to discuss. So far we have no details that would allow us to assess the quality of that chain of custody. RedIbis engaged in Poisoning the Well - I advise against that. But anyone who wants to defend Jim now is also jumping the gun.


The chain of custody of the Jones samples however is NOT a topic that promises any progress in this thread. We have done that topic to death already in other threads.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
MM yes the reason I provided for Kevin's refusal was because Jim Millette and the independent lab he works at has done prior research on the dust for the EPA which Kevin Ryan considers "deceptive." He never told me why he considered it deceptive except to say that this dust study didn't talk about the iron spheres; he linked me to an article and neither Jim nor I can understand what is deceptive about it.
Click to expand...

Since you indicated to me that you have a warm relationship with Kevin, why not ask him for greater clarification?

MM
 
Oystein said:
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
Click to expand...


They will most likely ignore it, since none other than Kevin Ryan is one of the editors of that "journal".

I wouldn't even ask Dr. M to try to get it published, as that would (IMO) degrade his work. It deserves to be published in a respectable journal.

But, it would be funny if we did it, just to see what their response is.
 
chrismohr said:
Oystein, I don't want to go through all of the old posts in my Richard Gage debate thread, but somewhere in there Chris Sarns linked us to a legitimate study that showed that nanothermites had potential to be made into explosives. If you really want to plow through a couple thousand posts you may be able to find it again. After reading that article I was convinced that it's at lest possible that nanos could be made into low-to-medium explosives.
Click to expand...

Chris, IIRC, that paper was about adding nanothermites to existing explosives, to increase their potential energy.

it wasn't a stand alone explosive nanothermite.

Cheers!

(I could be wrong about what it showed. I don't recall exactly what it was)
 
RedIbis said:
Because it's a basic question. Mohr is soliciting funds for a study of WTC dust. It would only be natural to ask where the samples come from.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here, but my guess would be somewhere in lower Manhattan.

Just figured I would help! Cheers! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom