• 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.

Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

Dave Rogers said:
Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite
Click to expand...

Strange how this confirms everything the common literature has already said about nanothermite. It's almost as if anonymous nanothermite bedunkers don't really understand what they're talking about.
 
Josarhus: Interesting. So N. Harrit, who knows basically nothing about polymers, is sure now that Jim Millette, as a top forensic expert specialized on the material analyses, misinterpreted somehow his FTIR spectra of red-gray chips:cool:

Rather surprisingly for me, they are no easily/freely available FTIR spectra of epoxy resins cured by amines on the net. They are mostly available only in bloody expensive databases. Anyway.... Let me consider what I see in Appendix C in Jim Millette's preliminary report, since here, FTIR spectra are for sure comparable:

In the first graph I see FTIR spectra of four red chips, which are very apparently the same material. Those spectra can serve me as a proof that there is some range of wavenumbers, within which individual characteristic absorption bands wavenumbers can vary for the same material. E.g., band at ca 1710 cm-1 appears in the range from 1707 to 1725 cm-1, band at ca 2930 cm-1 varies from 2928 to 2934 cm-1 etc. Generally, bands wavenumbers fluctuate in the range of ca 3 to 15 cm-1 for the same material here.

Naturally, we can expect similar variation in the order of some 3-15 cm-1 also when comparing chips FTIR spectra with proven epoxy coating, as we see on the second graph.
Here, as for epoxy resin identification, we can consider only the region between ca 3500 and 1100 cm-1 , since above and below this range, kaolin absorption bands occur.
Now, I will summarize wavenumbers of distinct bands which are observed for red chip and for epoxy coating in some very primitive table (sorry for idiotic "formatting":

Epoxy: 2934-2957 (double peak)
Chip: 2928

Epoxy: 2867
Chip: 2858

Epoxy: 1731
Chip: 1716

Epoxy: 1607
Chip: 1604

Epoxy: 1508
Chip: 1509

Epoxy: 1415
Chip: 1412

Epoxy: 1361
Chip: 1361

Epoxy: 1294
Chip: 1297

Epoxy: 1243
Chip: 1231

Epoxy: 1181
Chip: 1183

For me, the epoxy binder is proven in this way (but I'm not expert on infrared spectra material identifications, I just rely on Jim's long time experience with various materials).

Just for the record, let me also again past this paragraph from this page named Identification of polymers by IR spectroscopy:
"Bisphenol epoxy resin (our case, I.K.)
Since both bisphenol epoxy and polycarbonate are based on Bisphenol A, there are a number of similarities in their infrared spectra. There is no carbonyl band in the bisphenol epoxy spectrum, but the aromatic ring-breathing mode at 1,510 [cm.sup.-1] is very strong. Here the 1,610 [cm.sup.-1] ring-breathing mode is also relatively strong. The C-O stretch is strong and appears as two bands, a broad band with a maximum near 1,247 [cm.sup.-1] and a narrower and slightly weaker band with a maximum near 1,182 [cm.sup.-1]. Significant intensity is also seen in the out-of-plane aromatic C-H wag at 830 [cm.sup.-1]."


And what I see in the FTIR spectra of both epoxy coating and red chips in Appendix C, Millette's report (among others)? Quite strong bands at ca 1610 and 1510 cm-1 and some bands at ca 1240 and 1180 cm-1 . This is of course not really conclusive finding, just some hint that Jim Millette is right (basically in everything):cool:
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
If you want to challenge the Bentham Paper, you either prove they faked their results, or you prove they misinterpreted them.

A good place to start, unlike Dr. Millett'e bogus duplicate study, would be the use of identical Bentham test methodology on some 'proven' LaClede paint samples of similar age and size.

Unless every WTC-era building that used LaClede steel primer paint has mysteriously collapsed, there should be incredible amounts of this stuff on existing steel, and only a scraping away.

And before it is suggested that I do this, it is not my hypothesis that the red chips are LaClede steel primer paint.

MM
Click to expand...

Whoops, there goes that goal post!

here, let me help you move it back:

Miragememories said:
This is why I know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust.

That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint.
Click to expand...
To which Josarhus replied:
Josarhus said:
But through one of Harrits truther friends I have been able to establish that Harrits consider only one paint being used on WTC steel.

Harrits truther friend tells me that Harrit will not consider other paints since he cannot get hold of a sample of other paints.

I told Harrits truther friend that both paints are described in the NIST report and he responded:

Harrit said:
So NIST is describing "another paint" in their report? Then it's funny that they could only get hold on one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

In short,
MM: "Harrit is willing to concede and consider LaClede"
Harrit: "I am not yet willing to concede and consider LaClede"

There is a discrepancy. Do you see that?

I guess it is time for you to now back up your claim that "I [MM] know AE911 Truth is "quite willing to concede" the logical presence of steel primer paint in the WTC dust. That would include ALL steel primer paint formulations used in the WTC, including LaClede steel primer paint."
It's not Harrit. Who among the AE911T leaders and followers has yet actually conceded the existence and relevance of LaClede paint?



I would like to remind you at this time of the Harrit letter that YOU, Miragememories, linked to a few days ago:

http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf

In this paper, Harrit compares the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of Tnemec primer as published by NIST. He did NOT scrape any Tnemec off of any steel and analyse it, he went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation.

In my "paint" thread, I do the exact same thing, only I compare the XEDS data on chip (a) (and b-d) with the formulation of LaClede primer as published by NIST. I did NOT scrape any LaClede paint off of any steel and analyse it, I went strictly by NIST documentation of the theoretical paint formulation.


Do you notice how the two texts that I marked blue are identical, except that the words "Harrit - Tnemec - he", which I boldfaced, became "I - LaClede - I"?

Quite apparently, it was totally acceptable to Harrit to compare his chip data with a formulation of a primer as published by NIST. Now suddenly this is not okay when I do it?

Don't you see the double standards here?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction.

Done.

Dave
Click to expand...

This. It bears repeating:

Their samples yield, at most, more energy than pure thermite, despite being at most 5% thermite, yet this energy comes from a single exotherm. Therefore, the energy released does not originate from a thermite reaction.

Done.

Simple as that. Farrer's DSC results, together with Basile's "confirmation" of the elemental composition and burn rate, prove conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that at least 98% of the heat of that burning comes from combustion of the organic matrix with oxygen from the air.
 
WTC Dust said:
I did a survey last year of about a thousand of the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and one result was interesting.

About 10% of the members haven't signed the petition specifying thermite and do not have anything related to explosives mentioned in their bios or websites.

Interesting, huh? That at least 10% of A&E911T folks didn't sign onto the thermite theory.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is interesting.

I wonder, though, for comparison's sake. Did you ask each of them whether they agreed with the proposition that an unknown weapon turned most of the steel of WTC 1 and 2 to foam? What percentage replied, "Gosh and golly, you betcha!"
 
Back to AE911T having promised a critique of Millettes progress report:

Richard Gage is currently on tour, promoting his latest edition of a propaganda film which still features at least two "nanothermite scientist", Jeff Farrer and Marc Basile. Gage blogs after the events. Here is something he wrote after the 5/25 gig in Seattle:
Richard Gage said:
One gentleman wanted to know how thermite could be responsible for pulverizing all of the concrete floors in the Twin Towers. The important thing to remember is that we do not have all the answers about nanothermite and its explosive capability. In addition, it's possible that conventional explosives were used in conjunction with thermite to bring the buildings down. Regardless, the existence of thermitic material in the WTC dust samples is additional proof that the official story is a lie and it is enough to warrant a real 9/11 investigation.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a little cautious on the properties of nt (actually an evasion of the question of hypothesis), but still no caution regarding the existence of nt in the dust.
 
Ivan Kminek said:
MUST READ:

Free Scootle!
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/free-scootle.html

And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy
http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012/06/procrastination-not-conspiracy.html
Click to expand...

Oh, I like this:

We may have invested a lot of time into defending it, but don't worry, unlike debunkers, we don't let emotional investments and cognitive dissonance cloud our rational judgement!

Again, my big concern is what a refutation of Harrit et al will mean for AE911Truth and their movie. No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics, so I'll defend the 1700 individual A&Es to the death,
Click to expand...

Anybody else see the contradiction here?

Dave
 
Ivan Kminek said:
MUST READ:

Free Scootle!
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/free-scootle.html

And ScootleRoyale's fresh article Procrastination, not Conspiracy
http://911debunkers.blogspot.cz/2012/06/procrastination-not-conspiracy.html
Click to expand...

Holy crap. I never seen his "music video" before.



That guy needs to get out of the basement and get a tan, STAT! He looks like he needs about 4000 pushups. A few shrugs wouldn't hurt either. The boy got shoulders like a bookshelf lol.

I think a small animal died on his head too.
 
For me, it all comes down to Basile's study. Whichever side is 2-1 up after that is the one I'll side with. JM says the same.
Click to expand...

Basile's study? Does he mean this one which was done over a year ago? I'm lost.. is he doing another? it is being reviewed? explain..
 
I must say that thread title was entirely appropriate.. What is it with truthers and their need to release multiple versions of the 'truth'?

So, when are we expecting this 'new study' and how should we expect it to be any different to his last?
 
All that needs to be said about Basile's opinion was already said. Back in 2010.
R.Mackey said:
Why is this news? Mr. Basile was acknowledged in the original paper. We already knew his opinion, years ago.

What's needed is independent confirmation, which we all know will never, ever happen.

And the Truthers still haven't figured out that their own data proves it isn't nanothermite...

It's dead, Truthers. Find something else to whine about. It's over.
Click to expand...
Another truther stepping forward is irrelevant. What's needed is progression of knowledge, not rehashing of it.
 
Personally, I think that we should highly appreciate this article of ScootleRoyale, since this guy is apparently able to change his mind, if confronted with the good arguments and reasoning:cool:

And it is anyway the very first article in the Debunking the Debunkers web which (to some extent) admits that JREFers can be right as for red-gray chips.

I have no idea how influential is this web among remaining truthers, but ScootleRoyale seems to be rather disgusted with the "Experts Speak Out" Tour and AE911Truth. Not so bad, for a start:cool:
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Yes, rumour is rising among the Twoofful that Mark Basile is going to publish a new study.
Click to expand...
The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory.

It's even mentioned in the post cited above:

He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.
​

(On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post:

No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics​

because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5).
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
The rumors I'm aware of, though, are that someone (AE911T?) is raising funds (I guess Gage's wages cause the association to have none in the reserve) for a blind test of the chips by an independent laboratory.

It's even mentioned in the post cited above:

He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.
​
Click to expand...
Correct, that's what I heard, too. I even got a link:

http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/

Now, aneta.org is the stillborn "Association for Nine Eleven Truth Activists" by Rick Shaddock aka "Cicorp" aka "TruthMakesPeace" (I think), who is its "Executive Director" (read: lone guy in basement). So I am not sure if this fundraiser is current and THE Mark Basile fundraiser.

My rumours seem to indicate that this will come to fruition soon - not soon if he really got an independent lab to do it blindly though.

pgimeno said:
(On an unrelated note, I'll say that I'm appalled by this section of scootleRoyale's post:

No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics​

because neither of them offered an explanation of the collapse, thus using it as an excuse to defend AE911T "to death" sounds more like expressing a wish than a reason. The description of the collapse is in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study section 2.2.1.5).
Click to expand...

Never mind. It is settled, compacted and dried in their minds that "NIST" and "Bazant" only tell tales. It's apparently unnecessary to draw any distictions. Just two different members of the same NWO :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom