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

[moorea34]

Doesn't matter whether they tested under argon, air, perfume or one of my farts. The DSC test is invalid. I've said this many times before. Why is it invalid well there are 2 very different materials in the sample namely red paint and oxidised steel. DSC works by weight, some of the weight is oxidised steel some is paint but no one knows exactly. This alone invalidates any calculation because it's unclear as to exactly what is reacting in the DSC.

Harrit et al make no mention that it's the gray layer (oxidised steel) that forms the bulk of the microspheres. This is self evident. The gray layer is present before heating, but is not presnt post heating, yet the red layer is only partially affected. If the substance was super dooper nano-thermite then there would be no red layer left, it would have fully ignited.

Why are truthers claiming the red layer is nano-thermite but offer no explanation as to why it's the gray layer that is actually forming the bulk of the microspheres?

Excellent analysis Susnstealer... Once again.

 

[BasqueArch]

Marokkan posted this yesterday.

And also this

 

[BasqueArch]

Doesn't matter whether they tested under argon, air, perfume or one of my farts. The DSC test is invalid. I've said this many times before. Why is it invalid well there are 2 very different materials in the sample namely red paint and oxidised steel. DSC works by weight, some of the weight is oxidised steel some is paint but no one knows exactly. This alone invalidates any calculation because it's unclear as to exactly what is reacting in the DSC.

Harrit et al make no mention that it's the gray layer (oxidised steel) that forms the bulk of the microspheres. This is self evident. The gray layer is present before heating, but is not presnt post heating, yet the red layer is only partially affected. If the substance was super dooper nano-thermite then there would be no red layer left, it would have fully ignited.

Why are truthers claiming the red layer is nano-thermite but offer no explanation as to why it's the gray layer that is actually forming the bulk of the microspheres?

The coffin is more nails than wood now.

 

[triforcharity]

Chris I notice you never made mention of the Cate Jenkins EPA whistle blowing
report that prominently features Lab Guy Dr. Millette?

You seemed to think that our only interest was Millette's not being more open about his observation of iron microspheres.

MM

Why hasn't the EPA or other governing body done anything about it?

Oh, right, they're in on it too......gotcha......

 

[The Big Dog]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

The resident "truthers" are petrified of this test.

It is sad really. Can you imagine that the greatest achievement of the truth community is a self published vanity paper by people working outside their field that cannot support even the weakest hypothesis as to how the "super thermite" was used to support their CD fantasies.

Yet the cream of the truther trolls are furiously attacking a test that isn't even done yet.

We still believe in ya Jonesy!

 

[plague311]

Hi Ergo,
There is only one person on my Ignore list and that is Marokaan, due to a series of personal attacks months ago. If you or anyone else wants to give me a direct quote and citation (not a link to a 100 page article please) I'll look at it.

As 16.5 stated, there's nothing worth reading. It's the same rinse\repeat drivel they've been spouting for awhile.

I side 100% with everyone that previously stated that it wouldn't matter who performed the test, twoofers would poison the well. They NEED this report to be soiled so that their theory can continue to be. Despite the fact that they have no reasonable theory as to if the explosives could be used. Multiple times they've stated that they don't even know HOW it would be used, or the properties that it possess. It's a crap shoot.

 

[cantonear1968]

As 16.5 stated, there's nothing worth reading. It's the same rinse\repeat drivel they've been spouting for awhile.

I side 100% with everyone that previously stated that it wouldn't matter who performed the test, twoofers would poison the well. They NEED this report to be soiled so that their theory can continue to be. Despite the fact that they have no reasonable theory as to if the explosives could be used. Multiple times they've stated that they don't even know HOW it would be used, or the properties that it possess. It's a crap shoot.

Um......
Can I ask the obvious here? Kevin Ryan, at least reading Chris Mohr's comments, seemed to support an independent review of the dust to determine if there truly was therm*te present. If he now has a problem with the lab and scientist that Chris chose.....

WHY DOESN'T HE CHOOSE HIS OWN LAB AND HAVE THE DUST TESTED????

 

[cantonear1968]

With that said, I'm afraid this was a non-starter from the beginning. Chris, I can support that this may have been to settle your own curiosity, but if you have any hope that this will be accepted by truthers, finally settling the therm*te question, I'm sorry to say that this will never happen. We already see them lining up to discredit Mr. Millette's work [unless, of course, he proves therm*te in the dust. Then he will be fully endorsed. Hell, they'll even be happy if they can just quote mine his work!]. But accept that therm*te is not present? No Way!

We can't even get them to accept the steel wasn't "quickly shipped away"!

I'm afraid I agree with both Sunstealer and Ozeco. Sunstealer, when he said the test was unnecessary because the Harrit/Jones paper already proves there wasn't any therm*te in the dust. And Ozeco who makes the correct analysis that even if therm*te was there, it still doesn't prove the WTCs were CD'd! All the available evidence proves they were not!

 

[NoahFence]

Um......
Can I ask the obvious here? Kevin Ryan, at least reading Chris Mohr's comments, seemed to support an independent review of the dust to determine if there truly was therm*te present. If he now has a problem with the lab and scientist that Chris chose.....

WHY DOESN'T HE CHOOSE HIS OWN LAB AND HAVE THE DUST TESTED????

Is Kevin Ryan a member here?

No?


Sweet.

Why doesn't he choose his own lab? Because he's a *********** moron. Although the idiot is still smart enough to figure out that testing his material is akin to suicide for his retarded theories.

Let the autocensor do its job

Posted By: kmortis

 

[Oystein]

Um......
Can I ask the obvious here? Kevin Ryan, at least reading Chris Mohr's comments, seemed to support an independent review of the dust to determine if there truly was therm*te present. ...

In his latest blog post, Kevin Ryan alleges that Chris misrepresents the content of their communication.

That's why I hope that Ryan will yield to Chris's request to publish the entire mail exchange so we can see for ourselves.

 

[cantonear1968]

Is Kevin Ryan a member here?

No?


Sweet.

Why doesn't he choose his own lab? Because he's a *********** moron. Although the idiot is still smart enough to figure out that testing his material is akin to suicide for his retarded theories.

Let the autocensor do its job

Posted By: kmortis

Then why offer support, at least according to Chris, in the beginning? So why criticize the lab that Chris chose as opposed to just choosing one yourself?

Look, I'm not naive to this. I know Ryan and the rest of the truth movement's leaders have little to no faith in this paper [except maybe Harrit himself who seems a little....off shall we say]. But just taking things at face value, any, any, any scientific research needs independent verification to be accepted. They have even tried to pay lip service to this with less than earth shattering results (Basile, Henry-Couannier). So rather than whine about the lab Chris is using.....

WHY NOT FIND THEIR OWN LAB TO TEST THE DUST????

The question is more rhetorical in nature because I think the answer is obvious. If not, I invite MM, Ergo or Kreel to attempt a response.

 

[cantonear1968]

In his latest blog post, Kevin Ryan alleges that Chris misrepresents the content of their communication.

That's why I hope that Ryan will yield to Chris's request to publish the entire mail exchange so we can see for ourselves.

Ok. Fair enough.

However, that does not answer the question I posted (and I no longer feel the need for large fonts):
If they are unhappy with the lab Chris chose, and independent verification is a hallmark for scientific research, why not choose a lab they are happy with?

Wouldn't this be the first step in that "Independent Investigation" they all seem to want?

 

[cantonear1968]

Sorry. I get the feeling that I am simply stating the obvious. I'll discontinue this line of discussion unless MM, Ergo or Kreel can offer a reasonable explanation to my query.

My feelings stand with what Sunstealer and Ozeco have stated. I'm sorry to say that the results of this test will not change anything surrounding this issue.

 

[Oystein]

...
WHY NOT FIND THEIR OWN LAB TO TEST THE DUST????
...

Indeed, why not arrange and publish the data they already must have? Harrit and Jones have been talking about additional analysis, at least including TEM, done apparently by Farrer, already back in 2009, shortly after ATM came out. They wrote on blogs that this identified Fe2O3 - but where else did that analysis go? Where is their TEM paper? Did they find elemental aluminium, or did they maybe just find aluminium silicate?

Also, Marc Basile is said to have corroborated their findings, and Basile, too, said 2009 that he wanted to summarize his work in a PDF file. Where is it? Why haven't we seen it? The only useful citation I have of objective data from Basile is a youtube video.

Why aren't these scientists writing down and publishing their science, when they have already done the studies?

 

[Oystein]

Ok. Fair enough.

However, that does not answer the question I posted (and I no longer feel the need for large fonts):
If they are unhappy with the lab Chris chose, and independent verification is a hallmark for scientific research, why not choose a lab they are happy with?

Wouldn't this be the first step in that "Independent Investigation" they all seem to want?

Labs are expensive. And AE911T (Gage) is not going to spend any money on origibal and independent research. They are all about marketing.

Our $1000 with MVA is a steep discount, because our objectives happened to coincide with Millette's interests.

 

[Miragememories]

"Chris I notice you never made mention of the Cate Jenkins EPA whistle blowing report that prominently features Lab Guy Dr. Millette?

You seemed to think that our only interest was Millette's not being more open about his observation of iron microspheres."

"I looked for any negative reviews of Jim Millette and found none on the internet prior to choosing him. His name appears in the Jenkins accusations, but looking it over, he wasn't a primary player. All I could see was the fact that Millette said lots of iron in the dust but didn't specifically say iron-rich microspheres. Nor do I consider it necessary for him to have said it in a paper about health hazards. If you read his actual paper, it lists some REALLY hazardous organic chemicals, radiological waste, aresenic, asbestos, you name it. It was a very thorough and honest report on the hazards of the WTC dust, flatly contradicting the initial EPA declaration that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breathe. As he said to me about the dust, "If I find it I'll publish it." He has already proven this by publishing a report that lists some very major environmental hazards, EPA declaratiions notwithstanding!"

The problem Chris is that, whether you agree or not, you have been deceptive.

You want to show strong loyalty to the Official Story supporters while at the same time pretend to be balanced in your dealings with 9/11 Truth supporters.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and I certainly appreciate the civility you bring to the table.

But with an issue as important as 9/11, I cannot afford to allow my liking you as a person to interfere with my constant examination of your position as an Official Story supporter.

In my earlier post;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8036639&postcount=1997
I laid out my reasons for finding you guilty of being intentionally deceptive.

As you have said, you are a professional investigative journalist.

"...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..."

"...I asked over two dozen labs, forensic experts, fire safety specialists and individuals before I found someone of impeccable knowledge, credentials and objectivity. Many 9/11 Truth activists are contributing too, even with their initial skepticism..."

Your signature promotes the 20 YouTube videos that you created to debunk the findings of the 9/11 Truth Movement as presented by Richard Gage.

Clearly you want everyone to believe you have performed thorough exhausting research into the subject of 9/11.

So why the deception?

What research into dozens of labs?

In mid-November 2011 you posted about receiving from an unidentified person, a report about the WTC dust.

Was that person Dr. Millette?

A few months later you post;

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."[/i]

Going back to November 2011, you posted here that as a result of your interest in that report, you contacted one of its authors, Paul Lioy. You told him you were doing "journalistic research on the composition of the dust residues from the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster", explaining extreme skepticism about the finding of "explosive thermitic material was found in the WTC dust". As part of your communication, Lioy informed you that "Jim Millette of MVA, Atlanta GA did our microscopic analyses".

A few days later you posted that you received another interesting email "from a guy (I'll leave him anonymous for now.) Since his company participated in a WTC dust study."

Clearly this was Dr. Millette and just as clearly, it was not the first communication you received from him.

Why the subterfuge? Why did you feel the need to keep his identity secret?

Instead he became the Lab Guy until you let him out of the closet in January 2012.

And compounding the deception is all your changes to when we could expect to hear some of the more important findings. That has been a carrot constantly out of reach. The longer the data is held back and its interpretation subjected to bias, the more it can be massaged before release.

For those who say who cares, I'll give you one possible reason.

Dr. Millette and his company MVA, had previously performed extensive health-related research into the WTC dust, financed by the EPA.

Dr. Millette's speciality is in microscopic analyses and in particular asbestos fibers.

As an offshoot of 2009 Bentham Paper that declared a finding of nanothermite, Dr. Harrit announced at the September, 2011, 9/11 Hearings in Toronto, that he was pursuing serious research into the findings of carbon nano tubes found in the lungs of first responders.

For some background information;
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0901159
The contains this interesting revelation:
"Of the patients with interstitial disease, all had large amounts of aluminum and magnesium (Carbon Nano Tubes) in an unusual platy configuration, ranging from 27,600 to 184,000/g wet weight of lung. As a comparison, we reexamined for the presence of Carbon Nano Tubes in 40 samples taken from unrelated workers from diverse construction trades suspected for asbestos-related disease. These patients were known to have been exposed to asbestos, and most of these 40 patients had a high lung burden of asbestos fibers. Less than 10%, however, had platy aluminum and magnesium silicates similar to those seen in WTC patients."

And then describes WTC dust samples used for comparison:

"Electron microscopy mineralogic findings: A summary of the mineralogic analysis in correlation with pathologic features is given in Table 1. Four of the seven WTC dust samples contained Carbon Nano Tubes. The lung specimens of three of the patients with interstitial disease (Patients A, B, and C) contained Carbon Nano Tubes (Figure 3A) virtually identical to those of the dust samples (Figure 3B) and of the positive control sample (Figure 3C)."

I repeat, that Dr. Millette's area of expertise is in microscopic analyses and in particular asbestos fibers.

Was he aware of the presence of Carbon Nano Tubes in the WTC dust?

Was it like iron microspheres being listed as just iron?

Were observed Carbon Nano Tubes dismissed as mere carbon?

Would discrediting the 2009 Bentham Paper's nanothermite findings effectively reduce the credibility of Dr. Harrit's continuing research on the connection between nanothermite and carbon nano tubes?

Does the EPA have an interest?

Do those deriving an income from EPA contracts have an interest?

MM

 

[Feldspar]

Harrit and Jones have been talking about additional analysis, at least including TEM, done apparently by Farrer, already back in 2009, shortly after ATM came out. They wrote on blogs that this identified Fe2O3 - but where else did that analysis go? Where is their TEM paper? Did they find elemental aluminium, or did they maybe just find aluminium silicate?

Steven Jones wrote this in an e-mail exchange with a Norwegian professor back in May 2009:

thank you for your comments and note that FTIR, XRD and TEM studies are underway to check/confirm our conclusions.

So what was the conclusion from these studies?

 

[cantonear1968]

Was that person Dr. Millette?

MM, it seems clear that you are once again basing your conclusions on nothing more than speculation and supposition. You "need" it to be so, so you declare it so. You have no verification that this correspondence you refer to was Dr. Millette or not, and to base your conclusion that Chris is "dishonest" on this lack of verification seems rather despicable of you.

Perhaps despicable is not the word [though I do not retract it.]. I would say poisoning the well seems more apropos to your motivations.

But since you are here:

If you are unhappy with Dr. Millette and his work, why not find your own independent lab to verify the dust samples?

I will state here: if you find a truly independent lab that will examine the dust and they conclude there was therm*te there, I will accept their findings.

That, if I do say so myself, is a rather bold statement I don't expect anyone from the truth movement, including yourself, to make.

 

[Oystein]

Steven Jones wrote this in an e-mail exchange with a Norwegian professor back in May 2009:

Yes: http://web.archive.org/web/20110511...e-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/

So what was the conclusion from these studies?

None, apparently.

 

[chrismohr]

Line in the Sand

MM and others,

To save time and preserve sanity I will not chase around for answers to your suspicious questions. I will respond only to proof that Jim Millette publishes dishonest material, using his own words from his own studies, with specific quotes, in context, properly linked to original source material. Kevin Ryan made one attempt to demonstrate this in an EPA-funded paper Millette wrote about hazardous materials in the WTC dust. All he could show me was that Millette said "lots of iron" instead of "iron-rich microspheres." The accusation failed but at least it was an attempt to show dishonesty. No more speculating about me or him. Show me where he lied. And if you can't, back off. If you are setting yourself up to reject his data because I didn't answer long strings of insane questions, that is no longer my concern. The fact is, several 9/11 Truth people are eagerly awaiting the report... the ones who are actually interested in the truth.

As just one example of why I have lost all patience with you, consider your accusation that I am being dishonest because I allowed Dr. Millette two more weeks to give us a better report after forensic scientists give him peer-reviewing. You say this is because he'll have more time to distort the data with his fellow evildoers? And that I am in on the conspiracy to distort the data by giving him two more weeks?!?!?!
Oh
My
God!
Such an accusation does not deserve to be dignified with an answer.