Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

[ergo]

On the FTIR results from Harrit and Jones, yes, it will be good to see them ultimately, but only if they are going to offer any comparison to Millette's FTIR.

We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case. DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?

Millette knows Harrit and Jones did TEM and FTIR. He knows they did DSC, and that was the one test he chose to exclude. He could have conclusively debunked the Bentham paper by performing it. Why, when you have this long-awaited chance to drive the deciding nail in the coffin of thermitics in WTC dust would you not take it?? I feel sorry for bedunkers on this point.

911debunkers.blogspot.com, articles for March 5 and March 6, explain the differentiation of the aluminum and silicon in the chips found after MEK soaking. Which, if we can trust the data and its interpretation, shows us that these elements are not chemically bound, and thus are not aluminosilicates.

Millette's images (App. G) are not nearly so clear, so it's hard to know what we're looking at. But why, when his own results did not match the results that he was supposed to be replicating, would Millette not be curious about this, and do other tests to confirm? If he accepts H & J's data on this, this should be a point of concern for him.

The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?

 

[Julio]

We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case.

So they chose to leave out the data that would have been totally conclusive. Not a good idea.

DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?

I'm no expert in DSC, but I have the feeling that "exothermic process" doesn't necessarily mean "ignition".

The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?

Expect a spectrum showing both Fe2O3 and Al absorption peaks. I guess it shouldn't be too difficult to find somewhere...

 

[Oystein]

On the FTIR results from Harrit and Jones, yes, it will be good to see them ultimately, but only if they are going to offer any comparison to Millette's FTIR.

What does that even mean??

Millette's results are on the table. Why aren't Harrit e.al.'s on the table?
All they need to do is publish the data, anybody can then compare.

We need to remember that in scientific publishing there are space limitations. You can't publish all your data. As Harrit and Jones point out, to publish all the data from what was presented in the Bentham paper would require a book. They chose what they thought would best present their case.

As it turns out, they don't present their case at all well. So they either chose badly, or they have no case.

Did you read and understand my previous couple of posts here? Why their data totally disproves that the MEK-soaked chip could possibly the same stuff as chips (a)-(d)? Why did they present Fig 14 as the only data that would establish that that chip is or isn't the same as (a)-(d), when that data is so crassly different from Fig. 7? How stupid is that?

DSC shows the ignition point and reaction of the chips - something Millette did not do, and something paint won't do. -- Or will it?? Why has no debunker done this much easier test?

Because it would be a stupid thing to do. We already know that there are at least 6 different kinds of red-gray chips in the Bentham paper. Harrit e.al. are oblivious of this very obvious fact. They offer not the slightest clue which of these 6 kinds they tested in the DSC. They did it under air, which is a stuoid idea if you are interested in a thermite reaction and not in hydrocarbon comustion. The result is inconclusive anyway: the curves must be totally dominated by hydrocarbon combustion. There is so little Fe and Al in all samples, and so much C and O, that >90% of the heat MUST be from organic combustion. Yes, we already know and don't need to test that expoxy based paint burns. Yes, we already know and don't need to test that ignition will take place somewhere between 300°C and 500C - as did Farrer's chips.

But most importantly: Millette already KNEW that there was no thermite in his samples. Harrit e.al. likewise proved with the DSC test that those chips, even though of unknown type, cannot possibly be thermitic in nature (why? Explained to you many times before. They release 5 times the heat that actual nanothermite does, and twice as much as perfect theoretic thermite would, and this despite Farrer being so stupid and leaving the red layer attached to the inert gray layer of unknown mass proportion. Conclusion: The vast majority of the the generated heat must come from organic combustion, as it can't possibly can be from thermite)

Millette knows Harrit and Jones did TEM and FTIR. He knows they did DSC, and that was the one test he chose to exclude.

Why aren't you worried that Harrit and Jones (actually: Farrer) DID the FTIR, but never published results??

He could have conclusively debunked the Bentham paper by performing it. Why, when you have this long-awaited chance to drive the deciding nail in the coffin of thermitics in WTC dust would you not take it?? I feel sorry for bedunkers on this point.

Ok, smartie, tell us: Which kind of result from a DSC test that Millette could have done would debunked which part of the Bentham paper, and why?
(Answer: Since we have no clue which stuff Farrer put in the DSC, but we know it wasn't thermitic in nature, neither a similar nor a different result would debunk the Bentham paper any more than it debunks itself already)

911debunkers.blogspot.com, articles for March 5 and March 6, explain the differentiation of the aluminum and silicon in the chips found after MEK soaking. Which, if we can trust the data and its interpretation, shows us that these elements are not chemically bound, and thus are not aluminosilicates.

Yeah smartie, we knew that already: That chip is Tnemec. Tnemec contains no aluminium silicate!

Alumininum silicate is however contained in chips (a)-(d) - Harrit e.al.'s data proves that almost conclusively, and Millette confirms that finding which stands at 100% now.

911debunkers is a particularly STUPID blog.

Millette's images (App. G) are not nearly so clear, so it's hard to know what we're looking at. But why, when his own results did not match the results that he was supposed to be replicating, would Millette not be curious about this, and do other tests to confirm? If he accepts H & J's data on this, this should be a point of concern for him.

Easy. The chip Millette had soaked in MEK for 55 hours and then done an XEDS map on is different from the one Jones had soaked in MEK for 55 hours and then done an XEDS map on: Jones chip is very high in Ca and contains significant S and Zn, but no Ti; Millette's chip is very low in Ca, has no S and Zn, but some Ti.

They are different. That's why you get different results.

The other thing about Millette's FTIR is that he compares the graph with those of kaolin and epoxy resin, but we don't know what the comparison to nanothermites would look like. And who is going to have that data?

Ok, smartie: Can you tell us where to get comparison data for nanothermite? What should we be looking for?
(Answer: nanothermite is still basically Fe2O3 and Al. We have Fe2O3. So you only need to compare with Al. Nano or micro or kilo or Giga doesn't matter).

Millette found no Al, using SEM-XEDS, TEM or FTIR. Instead he found kaolin, Kaolin has equal amounts of Si and Al. The interesting (a-d-like) chips have equal Si and Al. Kaolin explains all the Si and Al in the chips. There is no elemental Al.
And that's the end of that story.

 

[ergo]

Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?

 

[The Big Dog]

Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?

The same time your heroes are going to publish the follow up they promised in their pay to play article.

Three years ago was it? And Jonesy is working on new energy sources that would make Dr. Judy blush.

Type bedunker again.

 

[cjnewson88]

Oystein, your baseless pronunciations here do more to re-cast doubt on your speculations than they do to convince anyone. Merely declaring that you "know" the chips aren't thermite, and that you "know" there's no elemental aluminum is not a credible scientific position. Furthermore, repeating things that have already been explained in Harrit et al, not to mention all the explanatory blogging that has followed (eg; no, the chips are not Tnemec paint -- is there something you keep missing about this??) makes you look like the stupid one. And we know you're probably not. Why don't you just stick to the facts instead of constantly imposing your opinion?

Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not, some of them with elemental aluminum (the data from which you still haven't addressed, let alone debunked), others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

The test was clearly laid out in Harrit et al, and bedunkers have failed it from the get-go. When are you going to do your own ignition tests?

In one ear and out the other. ergo, have you not understand a word Oystein has been saying. Why can't you see that what he is saying not only makes perfect sense, but is also 100% correct? Do you actually read and understand his posts? Or just skim through them?

When are you going to get it through your skull that Harrit et al DSC results DOES NOT SHOW THERMITIC MATERIAL.

My god.. Why do truthers choose to be deliberately ing stupid.

 

[Oystein]

Hehe it is very telling that ergo doesn't address even one of the many point I made and instead attacks a strawman:

...
Your main thesis here seems to be that the chips, although exactly alike in terms of appearance and magnetism are nevertheless all different, with some of them dissolving in MEK, others not; some of them igniting, others not. Are you saying that Farrer and Basile just got "lucky" with the chips they ignited? If so, why don't you prove it?

When are you going to do your own ignition tests?

Never.

Because I never said some of the chips don't ignite. In fact, I am sure that almost all of these paint chips will ignite, because almost all will have some organic binder. That is the reason why showing some ignition and perhaps some DSC trace tells us nothing we don't already know: That organic stuff can burn and deteriorate when heated under air.


Hey, Ergo, every reader notices thatr you dodged and evaded questions - as you do so often. So may I repeat them:


Why aren't you worried that Harrit and Jones (actually: Farrer) DID the FTIR, but never published results??


Ok, smartie, tell us: Which kind of result from a DSC test that Millette could have done would debunked which part of the Bentham paper, and why?
(Answer: Since we have no clue which stuff Farrer put in the DSC, but we know it wasn't thermitic in nature, neither a similar nor a different result would debunk the Bentham paper any more than it debunks itself already)


Ok, smartie: Can you tell us where to get comparison data for nanothermite? What should we be looking for?
(Answer: nanothermite is still basically Fe2O3 and Al. We have Fe2O3. So you only need to compare with Al. Nano or micro or kilo or Giga doesn't matter).


I suspect that you are unable to provide answers at all, and will not have answers that differ from the ones I gave away. In that case, please do at least acknowledge that you don't have an answer.

 

[Kent1]

Looks like ScootleRoyale responded to Oystein and myself.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-last-post-wasnt-really-intended-as.html




If this was your new standard of debate, the blog wouldn't look anything like it does now.

Maybe Mohr can make an addition at the end of his videos called "A list of Steven Jones goofball experiments". My favorite one is where he dropped concrete 12 feet onto another block, and because it didn't pulverize into powder like the Twin Towers, it must of likely been explosives.
He says you can try it yourself.
(No joke)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x55542

For some reason the reply has now been removed from the blog.

 

[Oystein]

For some reason the reply has now been removed from the blog.

Hehe perhaps succumbed to massive amounts of facts, reason and logic in my posts 77 and 79?

Never mind - he removed one post from his blog, I added one to mine:

Why red-gray chips aren't all the same

Basically a refined version of post 77, with some numbers re-calculated (no major discrepancies, to be sure).

 

[Oystein]

Discussion with SnowCrash at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7200&start=120 continues:

This sounds easy enough...

''I would like proof of Oystein's claim that Tillotson performed his test in Nitrogen. If true, Jones LIED.''
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...=7200&start=75

Do you guys have that proof???

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8110412&postcount=407

JREF Responses:
"That's not required." -- Sunstealer

Yes it damn well is required, Sunstealer. A claim was made, it needs verification.

"I have it as a private mail, but second hand, unfortunately without permission to publish." -- Oystein
Too bad Oystein. Publish or retract your claim.

I'm willing to accept your claim but not on this basis. Private mail my rear end. Then don't make accusations on the basis of private e-mails. Publish it.

And I'm not the owner of 911blogger. And stop lying to Jeff about DSC.

As for this:

From elemental analysis we have observed that these materials have organic impurities that make up $10% of the sample by mass [23]. It is likely that the impurities are due to residual solvent and/ or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the synthesis. All of these facts undoubtedly contribute to a reduction in the total energy measured.

--Tillotson, 2001

[23] refers to "unpublished results"

There would probably be a reduction in energy measured both in air and in inert gas, although less of a reduction in air. This doesn't help resolve the issue.

Publish Tillotson's mail. Steven Jones deliberately gave the impression on numerous occasions that he had contacted Tillotson to inquire about, among other things, his DSC experiments. He implied Tillotson has informed him his DSC experiment had been conducted in air. I want to know if that was a deception. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but I'm not going to go on rumor.

I have no investment in this issue one way or another. The truth will out.

1.
I was forwarded the mail on the condition that I would NOT publish it, but we are trying to get permission, or a new statement, from Alex Gash. Unfortunately, these guys have more important things to do and don't have good reason to respond to amateurs like us on fringe topics.

SnowCrash, I am glad and commend you for calling on Legge and Jones to publish their TEM and FTIR results. It is their results after all, no problem with privacy and copyright. I am really itching to throw Tillotson's and Gash's mails at truthers, I'd do it with glee, but you must understand that it is not the proper thing to do. If I publish now what I was given under the seal of privacy, then in the future everybody will have reason not to tust me with such information.


2.
"There would probably be a reduction in energy measured both in air and in inert gas, although less of a reduction in air." - No, this is totally false, SnowCrash, and I really believe you are much too intelligent to believe it is true, so probably you are misunderstanding something here. Let me try to explain:
a) Suppose you have a material with a density of 1.5 g/cm³. Now you mix it with 10% by mass of a material that has 15 g/cm³ (and don't mix in any air). Will the mix have a higher or lower density than 1.5 g/cm³?
b) Now suppose you have a material with an energy density of 1.5 kJ/g. Now you mix it with 10% by mass of a material that has 15 kJ/g. Will the mix have a higher or lower density than 1.5 kJ/g?
I think you understand now
But to drive the point home:
c) If you mix 1 part by weight of a material with 15 kJ/g with 9 parts of a material that is inert (0 kJ/g), what will be the energy density of the resulting mix? -> Answer: 1.5 kJ/g
d) Now, suppose you have a 9:1 mix of two materials, you know the mix has kJ/g, and you know the 1 part material has 15 kJ/g - what is the energy density of the 90% material?
You getting my drift now?

If you think this through, you'll realize that Tillotson and Gash WOULD be very stupid to run their DSC under air, knowing that 10% of their sample is organic and very probably combustible at 15 and more kJ/g, and Farrer, Jones and Harrit ARE many times more stupid for actually doing their DSC under air, knowing that most of the interesting material (the red layer) is organic and very probably combustible at 15 and more kJ/g (they are even more stupid for not separating the red from the gray layer before doing the test and recording energy density, and I can tell you more reasons why the way they did and used the DSC test proves they are all extremely stupid w.r.t. DSC).


Now I would really appreciate if you would retract some lies about me (such as: "Oystein payed Millette $1000 to buy the result he wants"). Such unfounded accusations do you no favour.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Oystein and all: Here is the first "official" reaction from AE911Truth.

It is based on the same silly, persistent presumption that only one red primer was applied on the various steel elements in WTC. It contains sentences like "This sophisticated incendiary material has been developed in the most advanced laboratories in the world, and is designed to blast through steel,"... etc.
It also contains the same illiterate idiotic comparison of red chips with some "ordinary paint": "In one of the tests performed by Harrit and other scientists, a red-gray chip was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which is a paint solvent. While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours." These "architects and engineers" are still not able to find or understand some very basic info about polymers and are not capable to learn that any red chip with crosslinked polymer binder cannot be indeed dissolved in anything! And they still think that only one kind of paint exists in this world...

In almost all truther reactions to the Jim Millette paper, the existence of Laclede primer is not really acknowledged so far. Therefore, our white-paper on the origin of chips (a) to (d) still can bring some light, Oystein.

From this flamewar I have a feeling that SnowCrash is only smart truther who is really active and who is trying to refuse "paint theory" (perhaps since he is an owner of 911Blogger as somebody noted?). SnowCrash is informed about Laclede paint but he e.g. pointed out that no strontium chromate was found by Jim Millette. So, our victory is still only the half-victory and without the help of Jim Millette we have no good chance to change it.

Anyway, Jim Millette concluded that his analyses of red-gray chips are consistent with some paint and this single conclusion is what we really need at first.

 

[cjnewson88]

What a dodge. and we all know 9/11 truthers will be clinging to this piece of misinformation without even looking at Millettes report.

The first two sentences;

The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure.

Who ever wrote this is being a deliberately dishonest p.o.s. What more do we expect from an organisation as pathologically dishonest as AE911

 

[Oystein]

Oystein and all: Here is the first "official" reaction from AE911Truth.

It is based on the same silly, persistent presumption that only one red primer was applied on the various steel elements in WTC. It contains sentences like "This sophisticated incendiary material has been developed in the most advanced laboratories in the world, and is designed to blast through steel,"... etc.
It also contains the same illiterate idiotic comparison of red chips with some "ordinary paint": "In one of the tests performed by Harrit and other scientists, a red-gray chip was soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), which is a paint solvent. While paint dissolves within a few hours upon immersion in this solvent, the red-gray chip did not dissolve, and remained in a hardened state after being soaked for 55 hours." These "architects and engineers" are still not able to find or understand some very basic info about polymers and are not capable to learn that any red chip with crosslinked polymer binder cannot be indeed dissolved in anything! And they still think that only one kind of paint exists in this world...

In almost all truther reactions to the Jim Millette paper, the existence of Laclede primer is not really acknowledged so far. Therefore, our white-paper on the origin of chips (a) to (d) still can bring some light, Oystein.

From this flamewar I have a feeling that SnowCrash is only smart truther who is really active and who is trying to refuse "paint theory" (perhaps since he is an owner of 911Blogger as somebody noted?). SnowCrash is informed about Laclede paint but he e.g. pointed out that no strontium chromate was found by Jim Millette. So, our victory is still only the half-victory and without the help of Jim Millette we have no good chance to change it.

Anyway, Jim Millette concluded that his analyses of red-gray chips are consistent with some paint and this single conclusion is what we really need at first.

Ok, what to do...
James B. ("Brainster" at JREF, if I am not mixing things up), already wrote a short reply: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/03/something-left-unsaid.html

Uhh yeah, let's just avoid mentioning that it did not find thermite in any form.

I just left a comment there. Hope it will be visible soon:

Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!

Second WTC primer not considered by all the nanothermiters:

LaClede Standard Primer!

Yes, Harrit showed correctly that chips a-d is not "Tnemec" (used for perimeter columns only), but there was at least one other primer, described in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B, p. 157 of the PDF file.
The floor joists, manufactured by LaClede Steel Co., were primed with a Zinc-free formulation that consists of
- epoxy-binder (71.5%)
- pigmenr (28.5%)
The pigment in turn consisted of
- iron oxide (55%)
- Al-silicate (kaolin is one!) (41%)
- Strontium Chromate (4%)
We call this the LaClede Standard Primer.

The XEDS spectra of this formulation have a striking similarity, down to many fine details, with those of chips a-d, and the clincher is:
The document this AE911T post links to to "prove" it ain't paint, Harrit's "Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint" (http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf) contains in Fig. 5, right, the extended XEDS graph of chip (a) - IT CONTAINS BOTH STRONTIUM AND CHROMIUM! Those elements were not shown in the Bentham paper, but check out the LaClede Paint formulation I gave earlier!

I guess I need to write a short, sweet blog post myself.


As concerns the "lack" of strontium chromate, I did a simulation of LaClede paint yesterday:

Notice: Strontium is practically invisible (flat at 14.16 and 15.83 keV). I did this at 20 keV beam energy, just like Harrit an Millette, iirc.

I'll try later to do it with 25 keV and perhaps 30 keV, hoping that this will etch out peaks beyond 10 keV.

 

[Julio]

As concerns the "lack" of strontium chromate, I did a simulation of LaClede paint yesterday:

[qimg]http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i328/MikeAlfaromeo/LaClede/LaClede_Sphere25micron_01.jpg[/qimg]

Notice: Strontium is practically invisible (flat at 14.16 and 15.83 keV). I did this at 20 keV beam energy, just like Harrit an Millette, iirc.

I'll try later to do it with 25 keV and perhaps 30 keV, hoping that this will etch out peaks beyond 10 keV.

This is a nice periodic table to use as reference in EDX. It lists the K,L and M peaks of all elements(though not their relative intensity):
http://www.edax.com/literature/periodic.aspx

The K peaks of Sr do show at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV (I guess you will need 30 or more KeV). But you should be able to see the L peaks in the 1.8 - 2.2 region

ETA: If you don't, maybe the concentration is just too low to be seen.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

This is a nice periodic table to use as reference in EDX. It lists the K,L and M peaks of all elements(though not their relative intensity):
http://www.edax.com/literature/periodic.aspx

The K peaks of Sr do show at 14.1 and 15.8 KeV (I guess you will need 30 or more KeV). But you should be able to see the L peaks in the 1.8 - 2.2 region

ETA: If you don't, maybe the concentration is just too low to be seen.

No, you are wrong, Julio. As was pointed already by Almond in the Paint thread several month ago (post No 156), there is an expected "pathological overlap" of strontium peak with silicon peak in this region at ca 1.8 KeV in this mixture of compounds. Sr peak cannot be really visible because of this (especially at this low concentration, as you noted). At best, we could observe some "tail" of this Sr peak (which we perhaps really see in some spectra, btw). This tailing seems to be observable also on the Oystein's XESD simulation just above.

 

[Oystein]

I just wrote a new blog post to show, with references, that LaClede paint exists and what it looks like and why Harrit is a fool:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html



As for the invisdisibility of Sr:
Si has peaks at 1.74 and 1.84 keV, Sr (L-alpha) would be at 1.81 keV. Since Si is much much stronger, you can't see the Sr signal under it.

On the far tail, near 14 and 16 keV, I just run a sim at 25 keV, still nothing really visible... I'll crank up the energy to 30 keV now ^^

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Great, Oystein. I hope that at least some truthers will read the articles on your blog

 

[ref]

Why fight it? Everyone knew from the very beginning, that if there ever was a study like this, the AE911T'ers would find a way to discredit the findings. It was a known fact even before anything was done. They would not accept the results and would perform amazing dodges, that we would call idiotic, but they couldn't care less. All they care is that they have responded, and shown that they disagree. It's all that matters to them. I see no point, absolutely no point, in trying to fight them in this matter, nor being somewhat surprised at their stupidity regarding the results. The reaction has been absolutely 100% as expected.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

ref: You perhaps do not comprehend, that we (I mean Oystein, me and some others) are not really "fighting" now with AE911Truth. For us, this "WTC paint issue" is a kind of a bizzare hobby and now, we are in some respects "fighting" mostly with the results of the Jim Millette study (with a goal to prove somehow our basic theory that Bentham chips (a) to (d) were Laclede paint particles).

I do not really care what AE911Truth people thinks. But, perhaps I have "hoped" that their reaction would be rather smarter. It is so stupid that it does not deserve any more attention here

 

[ref]

Hi Ivan, I know about your bizarre hobby

My comment was mainly directed to Oystein, who on SLC wrote: "Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!"

I just wanted to point out once more, that no matter who tells those people what, it doesn't affect them at all. It is of no use then to even point out where they have mistaken, or whre they have taken a wrong approach, because they just don't care. Neither should us.