• 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?

atavisms said:
paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres. ...

atavisms said:
paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.
Click to expand...


...
Click to expand...
The dust Jones burned puffed up and did not match the energy in Thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat energy of Thermite. Paper beats thermite. Wood and plastic have more heat energy. Why would you use thermite to weaken steel when the office fires can do it? Why are you so gullible? Did you read the paper?

The fires in the WTC towers were equal in heat energy to more than 2,500 tons of thermite in each tower. You picked losers, and you can't figure out 911.

Why can't you see the errors in Jones' paper? Did you take chemistry? Physics? math?


Why bring up Hitler, he is the biggest loser, and 911 truth is the biggest liar. You believe the big lies of 911 truth.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.
Click to expand...

The fail is strong in this one.

I suggest Atavisms you go back to Page 1, begin reading, until you reach this post, then try again.

Oh, and stay on topic.
 
Atavism, you are mostly off topic and your posts will be therefore deleted by Oystein (and this my post will be deleted as well).
Before Oystein will do it, just shortly for your sentence: "what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips?"
We think that these red-gray chips are particles of red primer paints attached to the rusted steel, since such paints were for sure used in WTC. This is in fact one of the most obvious presumptions in the history of criminalistics. And since chips described in Bentham paper look like paint chips and have a composition typical for paint chips (moreover the composition of some of them show almost perfect match with compositions of two WTC red primers), we therefore think that they are indeed paint chips:cool:

If you don't have anything factual and on topic, try your luck elsewhere, pls.
 
Last edited:
atavisms said:
paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html
Click to expand...
That they were only partially-ignited argues against their being thermite.

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips?
Click to expand...
The fact that they look exactly like paint chips and are made of exactly the same things of which paint is made.

(even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. As for dork boy Harrit's performing his tests in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, he has just proven that the chips act in the same way that paint does. Hit a paint chip with a welding torch and it goes "poof!"

The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
Click to expand...
No. There is no evidence of explosives and no damage consistant with thermite charges on any of the steel. There is no evidence of a cover-up. The only reason anybody has to suspect a cover-up is that some dimwits are too stupid to admit that they do not grasp basic fire science, or they take the word of a lying sack of Nazi crap like Chris Bollyn that there were big pools of melted steel in the basements of the buildings.

The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Click to expand...
Hog snot. You are lecturing chemists, engineers and veteran fire fighters, some of whom (like myself) have actually made and dem,onstrated the use of thermite in arson and demolitions. It is fools who believe a lying scumbag like Bollyn or Hufschmid or failed scientists like Jeff King or Jones or Harrit who are spouting crap.

Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.
Click to expand...

His modern-day accolytes have applied his lessons well in promulgating Da Twoof.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author. :cool:
Click to expand...
From what I understand it is not within the scope of the Millette work to prove that "Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11". I thought the scope was to identify if thermite components or residues were in dust samples.

That said I read the linked paper before my irritation level rose too far....:)

...when will these idiots ever learn rational thinking and logical reasoning skills?

The usual problem for every thousand words of lies it takes about 3 thousand to slam dunk rebut the dishonesties. I cannot be bothered wasting the energy - back in 2007-8 if someone came to the forum I frequented making those claims OR making genuine sceptical enquiries I would have written them some explanations. But this is 2012. Few if any genuine sceptics left. Lots of trolls, no genuine truthers I can identify posting on this forum. I'm sure some members will write some rebuttals - good for them. Not for me. :rolleyes:

EDIT: PS (You added the second link Ivan)
Ivan Kminek said:
...Here is another fresh article.
Click to expand...
The second paper is even sillier. But it shows real fear of truth and a preparatory wave of well poisoning.... So be it.

If we keep the perspective and context the whole of the thermXte debate is a trolls red herring. Even if there was tonnes of thermXte on ground zero there is not and never has been a coherent reasoned claim supporting any form of CD. Put it in pseudo percentage terms but thermXte is only one link in the chain needed to prove CD and it is no more than (say) 5% of the chain. And the truthers have burden of proof for the remaining 95%. At this stage 2012 they have never put forward anything more than a few isolated bits of technical claims. No coherent supportable case for CD. My advice to them is forget thermXte - try the other 95% of the claim. If you get that 95% then some of us, me included, will start to treat you as serious. With or without thermXte.
 
Last edited:
hmmm

*after talking about NORAD response/non-demolition evidence re. 911*
This evidence strains the incompetence excuse beyond it's breaking point and needs to be properly investigated irrespective of the demolition evidence and any debunking of the original nano-thermite study.
Click to expand...

So.. At the end of it all, Jim's results wont matter because they know 9/11 was an inside job??

:covereyes
 
Last edited:
They also forget that Jones walked away from his thermXte claims.

So it is back to "Don't confuse me with evidence and reasoning --- my mind is made up!" ;)
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?" is interesting. John-Michael P. Talboo is an author. :cool:
Click to expand...

To cut a long story short, I quote the quintessence of the article:

If all of this is done and the original study is effectively debunked then the question remains, "What does this mean for the truth movement?" The answer is nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, gusy, for the summaries. Yep, I did read the articles, but didn't plan on a rebuttal. The guy simply lying. The title of the second linked post is a lie, and the first contains severel. By way of example, it presents Discussion pieces at the JEM as "peer-reviewed articles", which shows the author (Talboo) know nothing about scientific discourse, or he flat-out lies ("discussions" about a peer-reviewed paper are published by the journal without peer-review).

The author commits several logical and methodological mistakes about scientific discourse that are a bit harder to spot or would require a few sentences to explain, but I won't bother. We see the same taktics as ever: hand-waving, moving goal-posts, Gish-gallopping and plain lying.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Hi All, I'd like to remind you the first truther's article reacting to Jim Millette's study. The title "What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn't Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?"
Click to expand...

So I started reading that article. Then I came to the first embedded video. On the screen shot which appears there is a statement that it is unsusual to find Al, Si and O in -40 micron platelettes in ordinary paint.

I can only assume that we are dealing with an ignorant schmuck who talks through his trousers.
 
Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing.

I eagerly await the results of Dr Millette's tests. In fact, I want more independent scientists to look at the red/gray chips. I probably won't trust Dr Millette's tests alone if they fail to replicate the results of Harrit et al, because there's always the possibility that he could be engaging in a deception. However, if we had like 10 different teams of scientists all testing red/gray chips from different dust samples and they all failed to replicate the findings of the original paper, then I would concede to the debunkers.
Click to expand...
Says it all.

Pathetic.
 
Sunstealer said:
Both of those articles are pathetic with numerous inaccuracies. Nothing will convince the die-hard truther. Nothing.
Click to expand...

I have long given up on convincing most of the tin-foil brigade that they have been conned, or that they missed some important facts in high school science classes.

I would be happy just to have some good science to show the people who have been exposed to, but not yet bought into the crappola that there were no "thermite residues" in the dust.

I shall be sure, once Dr Millettes work is finished, to send a copy to radio hosts like Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhodes. At least once a week, I seem to hear some lunatic calling them and mentioning that thermite chips were found at GZ. They seem unconvinced, but do not know enough to counter the whackadoodles.

I guess the study can at least be a public benefit in that regard.
 
ozeco41 said:
And that statement is true...


....but for the diametrical opposite reason to what the author intended. :)
Click to expand...
And this is also the reason taxpayer money must not be spent to humor these bozos with a new investigation. It will end up having as much meaning as the forthcoming Millette paper.
 
atavisms said:
paint is not highly energetic or leave the chemical signature of a thermitic reaction (including iron spheres) when ignited.. There are images of red gray chips only partially ignited that show the iron as well.
They are an advance engineered thermtic material. without any doubts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

what (besides absurd attempts at 'debunking' not backed in science of any kind) would ever make you think they were paint chips? (even without the chips (or whether or not it really matters that the tests done by Harrit et al didnt use a vacuum chamber.
the evidence for demolition in wtc 1 2 & 7 is over the top overwhelming, just from mainstream sources. The FEMA BPAT alone..the videos and debris, field, the dna reports and 1000 missing human beings.. the 100 day fires, etc etc...not to mention all the other shenanigans that so blatantly point to cover-ups by FEMA , the 9-11 commission and NIST.
The only person not knowing what Im talking about is someone who hasn't looked carefully. Who gets all their information from mainstream sources,, and is so used to having the dots connected for him/her on TV that s/he just won't look. After all, how can such an absurd thing be true.
Hitler really knew what he was talking about when he said the bigger the lie the easier it is to hide.
Click to expand...

The BIG LIE is much more palatable than the truth.

MM
 
beachnut said:
"The dust Jones burned puffed up and did not match the energy in Thermite. Jet fuel has 10 times the heat energy of Thermite. Paper beats thermite. Wood and plastic have more heat energy. Why would you use thermite to weaken steel when the office fires can do it? Why are you so gullible? Did you read the paper?..."
Click to expand...

Hmm.

I have never seen paper get hot enough to melt steel?

I have never seen jet fuel burn hot enough to melt steel?

I have never seen plastics burn hot enough to melt steel?

You should consider the 'rate that the energy is released', rather than the total amount of energy released.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
More attempted "well poisoning".

MM
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, guy (and by the way, I've thought for months now that your avatar looks like a Jason hockey mask, and I feel better now that I've got that out of me), the article calling into question any possible outcome negative to the Truther position in the Millette paper is textbook example poisoning the well.

Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom