• 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.

WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

I just got an email that Harrit, Jones and others are preparing a respectful response to Millette's study. Kevin Ryan's name was not mentioned but who knows he may make a contribution to this. They may catch some things we missed too. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...

I guess I find it disrespectful to release information that is knowingly false in the first place. I am sure v2.0 will be filled with "sir" and "ma'am" though.
 
Tricky said:
<snipped by TFT>
Next time you get Bad Mod.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
Click to expand...

How will we know the differen.....ce.......

Next day............

Tri found beaten with phone book....no leads......

:D
 
chrismohr said:
Hey, forgive the bragging but Richard dictated the terms of last year's debate and I still won. if you ignore their terms they give you endless grief about it. Answer their concerns and it makes their bewliefs harder to defend.

That's why I hope Millette looks at the iron microspheres etc. in his final study.
Click to expand...

LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg
 
tmd2_1 said:
LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg
Click to expand...
I got off track with my little boast, but Chandler's video is beyond off-track, it's a mean-spirited attack which people gleefully pull out whenever they're too lazy to respond to the content of what I said... or in this case, to cut me down to size I guess. Anyway let's get back on track, I've already responded to Chandler's nasty little attack piece on YouTube keyword chrismohr911 video #18. The mistakes he caught on my first version of video 18 have long ago been corrected.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
LOL...yeah you won the debate alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg
Click to expand...
What was the reason why Chandler wouldn't debate Mackey on Hardfire awhile back? He was too busy? Apparently demonstrating evidence for something as important as 911 isn't his priority, but making lame YouTube videos correcting someone who is a layman in the field is something he can find time for.

Laaaaaaaaaaame.
 
chrismohr said:
The final Millette paper will be professionally peer-reviewed by scientists who have nothing to do with JREF. That's the formal peer review. But Jim Millette no doubt will take a look-see at what people here have to offer as well. That will be a bonus. MM don't think for s minute Jim Millette is going to limit peer-review to just the things Oystein, Ivan, Sunstealer and Almond say! Please stop misinterpreting and accusing me! If you must launch into personal accusations, I have set aside space on my Richard Gage debate thread for that kind of thing so take your accusations there please.
Click to expand...
Do we have a timeframe for seeing the peer-review process completed for everyone to see?
 
OCaptain said:
Do we have a timeframe for seeing the peer-review process completed for everyone to see?
Click to expand...

Weeks in the best case, months more usually.
Of course Millette could find himself a pay-to-publish journal, that would speed things up to he time it takes for a cheque to clear ;)


See, it took him a few weeks to get to preliminary results and some raw data.
Writing the proper report will take some time.
He'll maybe want to have it internally reviewed before submitting to a journal.
Journals will have to read it, understand it, find peer-reviewers.
Peer-reviewers usually don't sit around idle just waiting for something to be peer-reviewed - they will take their time.
If they have recommendations to pass back to Millette, give him a couple of weeks to work them into the report and re-submit.
Once peer-reviewers give the go-ahead, journal editors need to find a slot in their journal; some publish monthly, some bi-monthly, some every quarter. So that may delay it another 1-3 months.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Weeks in the best case, months more usually.
Of course Millette could find himself a pay-to-publish journal, that would speed things up to he time it takes for a cheque to clear ;)


See, it took him a few weeks to get to preliminary results and some raw data.
Writing the proper report will take some time.
He'll maybe want to have it internally reviewed before submitting to a journal.
Journals will have to read it, understand it, find peer-reviewers.
Peer-reviewers usually don't sit around idle just waiting for something to be peer-reviewed - they will take their time.
If they have recommendations to pass back to Millette, give him a couple of weeks to work them into the report and re-submit.
Once peer-reviewers give the go-ahead, journal editors need to find a slot in their journal; some publish monthly, some bi-monthly, some every quarter. So that may delay it another 1-3 months.
Click to expand...

Indeed...if we follow truther standards Millette should do the following:

1. Find a pay to print publisher with a track record of no credibility.

2. Suggest someone who already agrees with his conclusions as a peer reviewer; preferably someone he thanks in the paper itself.

3. After being published get people who already agree with his conclusions to confirm his results via Youtube.
 
I don't know the time frame for the final published paper but yes, I expect it to be months, not weeks, away.
 
I'm told that a response may be coming soon from Niels Harrit. I just found out that Steven Jones has indicated he will wait until the final published article is out.
 
Chris: What I have read up to now, reactions of S. Jones (in 911Blogger) are more cautious than the responses of other truthers. This seems to be another such reaction of Jones, comparatively reasonable.

Otherwise, I expect two kind of objections (among others):

1) "In fact, James Millette has not identified the material (some particular paint(s)), so this is no real progress or turnaround in the red-gray chip matter."
(And this is partially right, Chris, and it happened since Jim has not been informed about Laclede epoxy paint specification. I do not say this is wrong, it was our agreement here, not to push Jim Millette to any side:cool:

2) "Bentham chips still can be nanothermite, since they formed iron microspheres after heating in DSC device, which proved extremely high temperatures... blahblahblah... you know, this kind of stuff":o)
(Here, there is potentially much easier way to falsify this claim than expensive DSC experiments: Jim can select few chips with XEDS very similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d), with epoxy binder, iron oxide and kaolinite pigment in them, burn them in some oven under air and then look, if the ash contains some ferrospheres or any-spheres... But, perhaps better is not to measure anything, since the sad line of illiterate objections of truthers will never end;))
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
I got off track with my little boast, but Chandler's video is beyond off-track, it's a mean-spirited attack which people gleefully pull out whenever they're too lazy to respond to the content of what I said... or in this case, to cut me down to size I guess. Anyway let's get back on track, I've already responded to Chandler's nasty little attack piece on YouTube keyword chrismohr911 video #18. The mistakes he caught on my first version of video 18 have long ago been corrected.
Click to expand...

Though a little of topic from the thread I'd like to make a few more points. I mean fair is fair you made the first post in our exchange.

Chandler's "attack" was not mean "mean-spirited" it was factual. If reporting of facts, stating facts...etc makes you mean, I'd like to think I'm the meanest person around. I also find it funny how you saying you "won" the debate if off track, but me posting a rebuttal to that claim is "way off track" Something doesn't seem right with that. Chandler's video IS a response to what you said, is it necessary for me to re-write what is already in it?

I also find your little boast of "winning" the debate somewhat strange (for lack of a better word) For one thing debating isn't like a football game, who "wins" is somewhat subjective. It's a little odd you used that term, perhaps something like I handled myself well or something to that affect, would have sounded better. In my opinion, Gage did quite well, but it is my opinion.

Lastly, if you really do consider Chandler's video "nasty" (this is again subjective) try putting yourself in his situation. You associate yourself with people who do nothing but call him crazy, insult him and the whole movement. These insults are on a personal level. Now I have not seen you do that, but you certainly associate with people who do, one only has to look through threads on this board to see that. Would you be overly kind to someone who associates with people who do nothing but insult you, with some of the most vile things that can be said?
 
Ivan Kminek said:
Otherwise, I expect two kind of objections (among others):

1) "In fact, James Millette has not identified the material (some particular paint(s)), so this is no real progress or turnaround in the red-gray chip matter."
[...]
2) "Bentham chips still can be nanothermite, since they formed iron microspheres after heating in DSC device, which proved extremely high temperatures... blahblahblah... you know, this kind of stuff":o)
(Here, there is potentially much easier way to falsify this claim than expensive DSC experiments: Jim can select few chips with XEDS very similar to Bentham chips (a) to (d), with epoxy binder, iron oxide and kaolinite pigment in them, burn them in some oven under air and then look, if the ash contains some ferrospheres or any-spheres... But, perhaps better is not to measure anything, since the sad line of illiterate objections of truthers will never end;))
Click to expand...

IMHO, the discussion could finish at the very moment Jones et al release their FTIR data, since it would identify what their chips actually are, regardless of whether they are the same chips Millete tested. Remember they also refused handle some samples to Millete. It's their turn, as I see it.
 
DGM said:
I'm holding off the see the rest of Harrit/Jones et al data.

Any idea when they plan to release it?
Click to expand...
Good point. Let's see.

Senenmut thinks the DSC (which is a test that doesn't prove a thing about the chemical composition of a sample) should be done to Millette's samples.

Millette thought that was not a necessary test to do because he proved through FTIR that the aluminium is actually in the form of kaolin platelets and nothing else.

Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.

And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????
 
pgimeno said:
Good point. Let's see.

Senenmut thinks the DSC (which is a test that doesn't prove a thing about the chemical composition of a sample) should be done to Millette's samples.
Click to expand...
it does provide addtional data though. and from that data we might be able to see that millette's material is different from jones'.

pgimeno said:
Millette thought that was not a necessary test to do because he proved through FTIR that the aluminium is actually in the form of kaolin platelets and nothing else.
Click to expand...
it was not necessary to his samples but to equate millette's samples to jones' samples then the DSC needs to be done.

pgimeno said:
Jones et al. have the FTIR data that would conclusively prove what the material is, but they won't release it.
Click to expand...
i really wish with they would...

pgimeno said:
And Senenmut is asking us to put money to do an unnecessary and inconclusive test, instead of asking Jones et al. to release the FTIR data which would be definitive??????
Click to expand...
not unnecessary but i am asking for the test to be done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom