• 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?

Last edited:
DGM said:
Has Ryan ever said how much they spent?
Click to expand...

Touché! He should be asked that question publicly and reminded of his comment towards Millette.

I used to wonder what BYU would think about Jeff Farrer using their resources to conduct the study of WTC dust. But I suppose ethics only works one-way in trutherland....

ETA for that matter, did Niels Harrit abuse his university position and conduct private work on company time and equipment?
 
Last edited:
This is a good time to take the high road, in my opinion. All I care about is the science and the studies. Once we start auditing the costs of their research and whether they were on company time, we're completely off-track and it all comes across as mean-spirited.
Here's what seems to speak for itself:
1) We have a scientist doing the research who has been complimented by Cate Jenkins.
2.) Kevin has nevertheless trashed him and refused to participate in the research when invited.
3) Here's the research.
Wow.
 
alienentity said:
Touché! He should be asked that question publicly and reminded of his comment towards Millette.
Click to expand...


If I was into "spit-ball":

I would also ask who paid for it?

Were anyone involved in the "peer-review" also involved with any of the authors of the "paper" (they'll hate this one)?

:rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
"I originally asked Dr. Harrit that very question at the Toronto 9/11 Hearings last September.

He stated emphatically that the Bentham Paper research team had had clear communication with Tillotson and were told that the DSC testing was conducted in open air.

I have brought your assertion and accusation of lying to their attention and received a prompt reply that they would never engage in such a charade and that their information came directly from Tillotson and Gash."
Click to expand...
sheeplesnshills said:
"I'm pretty sure thats just hearsay and so not admissible as evidence.......and given the repeated evidence of twoofers misinterpreting even the simplest of conversations I see nothing strange about Harrit getting this wrong too.

LOL, Maybe Harrit was having his leg pulled :D"
Click to expand...

On what basis can you say "I'm pretty sure thats just hearsay and so not admissible as evidence"??

I asked the question and Dr. Harrit replied directly from his own knowledge.

In a court of law, I am quite certain his testimony would be admissable.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
On what basis can you say "I'm pretty sure thats just hearsay and so not admissible as evidence"??

I asked the question and Dr. Harrit replied directly from his own knowledge.

In a court of law, I am quite certain his testimony would be admissable.

MM
Click to expand...

Well, at least you are consistently wrong. That's at least double hearsay.
 
Miragememories said:
I originally asked Dr. Harrit that very question at the Toronto 9/11 Hearings last September.

He stated emphatically that the Bentham Paper research team had had clear communication with Tillotson and were told that the DSC testing was conducted in open air.

I have brought your assertion and accusation of lying to their attention and received a prompt reply that they would never engage in such a charade and that their information came directly from Tillotson and Gash
Click to expand...


You have testimony of Harrit that "their information came directly from Tillotson and Gash"? :D
This testimony is false since thermXte boys have never said that they have contacted Gash... only Tillotson.
Here : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8037904&postcount=2016 :rolleyes:


I have copy of the mails by both first authors of this article, contacted separately, testifying the use of "ultrapure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL"
"As you correctly point out DSC in an O2 atmosphere will combust the organic impurities and greatly add to the energy release. However the DSC in question was done in ultra pure nitrogen"

;)
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
On what basis can you say "I'm pretty sure thats just hearsay and so not admissible as evidence"??

I asked the question and Dr. Harrit replied directly from his own knowledge.

In a court of law, I am quite certain his testimony would be admissable.

MM
Click to expand...

So why is it that you take their word as gospel but handwave other sources? I am just trying to figure out what is considered a quality source by you. I think that would help clearing a lot up. That way both sides aren't posting things that are considered useless.
 
moorea34 said:
You have testimony of Harrit that "their information came directly from Tillotson and Gash"? :D
This testimony is false since thermXte boys have never said that they have contacted Gash... only Tillotson.
Here : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8037904&postcount=2016 :rolleyes:


I have copy of the mails by both first authors of this article, contacted separately, testifying the use of "ultrapure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL"
"As you correctly point out DSC in an O2 atmosphere will combust the organic impurities and greatly add to the energy release. However the DSC in question was done in ultra pure nitrogen"

;)
Click to expand...

So I guess you are at the very least calling Tillotson a liar?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So I guess you are at the very least calling Tillotson a liar?

MM
Click to expand...

Let me walk you through this.

Harritt claimed he talked to Tillotson AND Gash. That was false because he never spoke to Gash.

Tillotson said that the test was done in pure nitrogen.

You said that Harritt told you that Tillotson and Gash told him that they did the test in the atmosphere, which is complete hearsay.

Follow yet?
 
moorea34 said:
I have copy of the mails by both first authors of this article, contacted separately, testifying the use of "ultrapure nitrogen as is standard technique here at LLNL"
Click to expand...
I think you need to release a screenshot of those emails to provide evidence because otherwise it's just a war of words.

I find it hilarious that truthers are trying to discredit Millette BEFORE any findings are published. What happens if Millette finds thermite in his samples? Are truthers going to say noooooo Millette is discredited so his study finding thermite is worthless? Well we all know the answer to that one don't we.

It's ludicrous and shows how dishonest and insecure people like Ryan are with regard to any further study. If they had any conviction about their own samples, that they claim contain thermite, then they would seek out independent analysis.

This is one of the reasons why I've not contributed financially to this new study. There's no point because truthers will always discard its findings if it doesn't agree with their pre-conceived notions. However, I will cast a critical eye over the study just as I did in 2009 with Harrit et al.

I'm sure if Harrit et al (and others) submitted a photo of their sample to McCrones Associates online via the company's online admissions form asking for a quote for analysis of the material that McCrones would say, "It's paint, now do you want an analysis as to what sort of paint it is because it will cost X amount?"

The Bentham paper is almost 3 years old yet there has been no follow up or further work as suggested by the authors' own admission.
 
And to add. DSC in the Harrit et al paper is worthless so arguing over what atmosphere the test was carried out in is also worthless.
 
Sunstealer said:
...
The Bentham paper is almost 3 years old yet there has been no follow up or further work as suggested by the authors' own admission.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that: They HAVE done some follow-up work (Farrer has, and Jones and Harrit have already been bragging about it in 2009), especially TEM, but have not released any data or anything.
 
moorea34 said:
No!
I'm saying that Harrit is a liar:
- when he said that they have contacted Gash
...
Click to expand...

If I may be tedious?

I know of no evidence that Harrit said they contacted Gash. I have so far only seen Harrit write that they contacted Tillotson[1].

It was MM who claims Harrit said they contacted Gash. So perhaps Miragememories is wrong here: Harrit didn't say that, or perhaps MM never asked Harrit in the first place.




[1] That, of course, is a lie, too, as we know from Tillotson. Again, maybe that lie isn't Harrit's; could be that Farrer lied about having phoned Tillotson, and Harrit gullibly believed Farrer.
 
Last edited:
moorea34 said:
No!
I'm saying that Harrit is a liar:
- when he said that they have contacted Gash
- here (http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/occams-razor-removes-paint-a-primer-by-niels-harrit/) when he wrote that "Magnesium was never observed, which is another element characteristic of the primer paint" - Bentham fig 14 : magnesium peak between Al and Zn.

Do you want more?

;)
Click to expand...

Re: Sunstealer's request, I second it, but I wonder if you feel it is a breach of privacy to openly publish the emails. It would be necessary to see them at some point if you are going to reference them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom