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

[Ivan Kminek]

I've said this before in this thread and apparently because Oystein did not approve of the content, my post got removed.

The subject of this thread is supposedly, Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

If the subject was; Origin of the primer paint used on the WTC trusses, I might understand how discussing investigative results which disprove the red chips being primer paint might be off topic.

But this thread focuses on those red-gray chips.

"was found as", has only one possible meaning, and in the context used in the thread title, the statement a lie.

The Bentham paper and another, referred to in this thread, clearly state a finding that the red-gray chips are not paint and that their only connection with paint was in their surface contamination. The red-chips surface contamination was found with or to possibly include, all the other materials that existed in the WTC.

Discussion that argues that the red-gray chips were not found to be paint, but a significantly different material, is valid discussion and not off topic.

MM

You are right in one respect, MM: a title Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips coldn't be used e.g as a title of scientific article, which is only looking for the origin of some unidentified material. But here, in discussion forum, this title is good enough.

My proposal of course is: open a thread named Origin of the nanothermite that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? I wish you good luck and many satisfied visitors

 

[Oystein]

...
My proposal of course is: open a thread named Origin of the nanothermite that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas? I wish you good luck and many satisfied visitors

If that's the topic you wish to debate, then by all means do open that new thread, but don't do it here (although we already had several threads that debate the "red-grey chips=n-t" claim; you could resurrect any of these and see if anyone is interested). I might even take you off of my ignore list if my logged-off sneak-reading showed that you are anyone actually does have ideas that they can support with evidence.

Good luck to you, MM, and goodbye in this thread.

 

[LSSBB]

Side note: I keep reading hype in the news about crowd sourcing of projects. This is the only one i've seen (admittedly I haven't looked very hard).

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Side note: I keep reading hype in the news about crowd sourcing of projects. This is the only one i've seen (admittedly I haven't looked very hard).

Is there a crowd of twoofers? Would their mothers allow them to send their allowance?

 

[LSSBB]

Is there a crowd of twoofers? Would their mothers allow them to send their allowance?

Seems like the only projects they can "crowd source" are putting annoying protesters on the street and having "hearings".

ETA: actually, to be fair Truthers are contributing to this one, financially and (I think) with a couple of useful criticisms.

 

[Miragememories]

"You are right in one respect, MM: a title Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips coldn't be used e.g as a title of scientific article, which is only looking for the origin of some unidentified material. But here, in discussion forum, this title is good enough."

And so was my reply.

Unfortunately Oystein wants to control any argument that shows how flawed his OP premise is.

I have no argument with a thread starter's right to make a title of their choosing.

But when the meaning of the title is a lie and the thread starter insists on perpetuating that lie and censoring all opposition to it, then I have strong objections.

If I started a thread titled Origin of the Perpetrators that have been proven responsible for 9/11 being an inside job?, I am quite certain that people like yourself would object to that unproven premise and not accept my right to remove your objections.

Members should always have the right to question stated lies

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Members should always have the right to question stated lies

MM

That's why we have to keep asking you questions........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And so was my reply.

Unfortunately Oystein wants to control any argument that shows how flawed his OP premise is.


MM

But the Benthams data shows it was almost certainly paint and that it certainly was not Thermite.
Why are you so willing to accept Jones assertions but not Oysteins, given that you are utterly ill-equipped to have a valid opinion either way? Seems a classic case of confirmation bias........

 

[leftysergeant]

The Bentham paper and another, referred to in this thread, clearly state a finding that the red-gray chips are not paint and that their only connection with paint was in their surface contamination. The red-chips surface contamination was found with or to possibly include, all the other materials that existed in the WTC.

Horse hockey. The charlatans found that the chips were not the same kind of paint that old chucklenuts scraped off the stadium at BYU. big whoop

Discussion that argues that the red-gray chips were not found to be paint, but a significantly different material, is valid discussion and not off topic.

How about starting a thread that shows the results of testing know La Clede primer side-by-side with the supposed thermite chips?

If chuckllenuts claims that there were no La Clede chips in the dust, it seems clear that he has no freaking clue what he is about. It would be impossiblew for there NOT to be La Clede chips.

 

[Miragememories]

And so was my reply.

Unfortunately Oystein wants to control any argument that shows how flawed his OP premise is.

I have no argument with a thread starter's right to make a title of their choosing.

But when the meaning of the title is a lie and the thread starter insists on perpetuating that lie and censoring all opposition to it, then I have strong objections.

If I started a thread titled Origin of the Perpetrators that have been proven responsible for 9/11 being an inside job?, I am quite certain that people like yourself would object to that unproven premise and not accept my right to remove your objections.

Members should always have the right to question stated lies

MM

That's why we have to keep asking you questions........

Try addressing the post for a change.

MM

 

[Edx]

Try addressing the post for a change.

MM

From you that sure is ironic.

 

[NoahFence]

Try addressing the post for a change.

MM

He was.

 

[Fly Poster]

Thanks Chris, for all the effort you have put into this, can't wait for the results.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks Chris, for all the effort you have put into this, can't wait for the results.

You're welcome. I think Jim Millette will be done with his preliminary research in mid-February. If I understood correctly, he will present his initial findings at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences gathering in late February, then publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The only guarantee we have is that we will get a report. As for thermites, as you may know he said, "If I find it I'll publish it."

In the meantime, a "Real Truther" has investigated Jim Millette and offered emotional and financial support for this project (he is not on JREF). Some people have vehemently rejected his embracing of this dust study, and he has replied to them with this letter:

This is from Chris Mohr, the darling of the JREF believers in the OCT.
It is a pleasure to be helping to get this landmark replication study going.

It took a while, but is absolutely necessary for acceptance by the scientific community.
I find tha Dr. Millette is an objective scientist and will not skew the results one way or the other.
Dr. Griscom will not tolerate any skewing either. So both replication studies will be helpful,
and hopefully inspire 10 more replication studies.

[I don't know anything about Dr. Griscom or his study BTW]

The reason I get to the Truth on things (9/11, JFK, Obama, Enlightenment)
and you don't is that I am open to considering new information
even if it may change my current views

You are not. You use such pre-judging phrases as:
"that is obviously false"
"no intelligent person would consider it"
"not worth reading"
blah blah, and other cop-out statements.

It's dogmatism - reliance upon previously held beliefs
while excluding new info that might be counter to the dogma.

You rely on other people to check things out and report them to you.
I check things out for my self, do experiments on my own,
make them known to the public, and consider the feedback from others.

Critical Thinking and Open Mindedness were the two tests I did for my Masters thesis.
They go together. Without OM, a person cannot apply CT to the new information.

If you pre-judge the information, you can't appy CT or intelligence.
Without OM, you just leave yourself in the dark, in your own Matrix.

 

[Zeuzzz]

^ I like that reply.

Have we had any preliminary results yet or is reading the last few pages of this thread going to be just as much a waste of my life as most of the 9/11 threads?

Please start a new one Chris when you get any results!

 

[tsig]

You're welcome. I think Jim Millette will be done with his preliminary research in mid-February. If I understood correctly, he will present his initial findings at an American Academy of Forensic Sciences gathering in late February, then publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. The only guarantee we have is that we will get a report. As for thermites, as you may know he said, "If I find it I'll publish it."

^^^^^^^^^

^ I like that reply.

Have we had any preliminary results yet or is reading the last few pages of this thread going to be just as much a waste of my life as most of the 9/11 threads?

Please start a new one Chris when you get any results!

 

[chrismohr]

^ I like that reply.

Have we had any preliminary results yet or is reading the last few pages of this thread going to be just as much a waste of my life as most of the 9/11 threads?

Please start a new one Chris when you get any results!

I'll probably revive my "Richard Gage debate" thread and post all results there. Nothing much has happened on that thread for awhile, and since this is an outgrowth of my Gage debate I'd love to place it there. There will be data in Millette's report. Will it be a waste of time? You tell me after you read it.

 

[Oystein]

...
Dr. Griscom will not tolerate any skewing either. So both replication studies will be helpful,
and hopefully inspire 10 more replication studies.

[I don't know anything about Dr. Griscom or his study BTW]
...

Hehe that may be the most interesting bit of information in your post (next to Jim presenting his prelim findings at a conference before publishing).

Dr. Griscom is, after the persons who provided the four dust samples, the first person acknowledged and thanked for in the Harrit paper:

We thank David Griscom, Mark Basile, ... Crockett Grabbe, David Ray Griffin, ... Richard Gage, ... for elucidating
discussions and encouragement.

More importantly, Griscom has claimed to have been one of the peer-reviers of this paper. I don't have link handy, but that's a story that went 'round at the end od 2010.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Zeuzzz: : since we have basically a permission from Chris Mohr, we can show you the first, indeed very preliminary (!) results of Jim Millette's work from the beginning of this year (?).

He already collected few red-gray chips from the WTC dust and here are their micrographs under some magnification:

As you can see, chips are similar to the chips in Bentham paper and it is even more clear now that such tiny red objects are really abundant in the WTC dust. This is of course very good for further analytical work.

Here is the very first XEDS of the red layer, measured by Jim.
It's hard to make any conclusion here. It seems to me that this layer can be basically identical with the red layers shown in Fig. 7 in Bentham paper (especially Fig. 7c is quite close), but chip surface can be heavily contaminated with mostly calcium, sulfur (calcium sulfate from wallboards?), magnesium and (maybe) silicon (see bellow). All these elements are common in contaminants. A very little carbon peak is strange (considering that paint layer has to contain organic/polymeric binder). Basically, this red layer can still be something else than material shown in cited Fig. 7.

Here is the very first XEDS of the gray layer. . It shows us a spectrum corresponding basically to some iron oxide, but again the layer is probably contaminated, here mostly with some silicon stuff. Notably, manganese (an "ingredient" of the floor trusses steel) is marked in the spectrum.

I would say: no conclusion can be made from these few results, except this one: any potential surface contaminants must be thoroughly removed from the chips by some good methods, like e.g. ultrasonic cleaning. But Jim knows it very well (and Bentham team also knew it very well)

 

[alienentity]

Cool! Thanks for sharing, Ivan. I can't think why people would conclude this bi-layered stuff is some kind of exotic thermitic. That's the last thing I would have thought.

btw I'm working with a Czech conductor doing 'Rusalka' for the next 2 weeks. Great stuff!