• 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

ergo, you keep dodging an important question regarding how you would get convinced. I still see lots of wriggle room in the outcome of a DSC test result that you say would convince you of no thermite. You still haven't convinced me you're serious about it. I don't think you are. Your answer is ambiguous enough as to not be an answer, as you can work around any result for not being done your way. My prediction holds.


pgimeno said:
ergo said:
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.
Click to expand...
Please explain how would that convince you.

Are you implicitly agreeing here that the chips analyzed by Millette have the same composition to the chips in figure 2 a-d in the Bentham paper, and thus if one is thermite the other is too, and vice versa?

Under what conditions should the test be performed for you to consider that a negative conclusion derives logically from a DSC experiment? (a) Presence of oxygen, (b) Pure nitrogen?
Click to expand...
 
You're right, pgimeno. The first result would not completely convince me. It would help your case a lot, though. I will revise my answer to this:

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results.

The latter would go farther in convincing me than the former.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?
Click to expand...

So beachnut's statement was irrelevant? Ok, I can agree with that - at least the "steel cutting" portion there of. The rest of the remark - that paper has a higher energy density than thermite - is somewhat relevant.

Leaves my astonished that you would reply to the irrelevant part. Then again, that's what trolls do, so I shouldn't really be surprised ;)
 
ergo said:
Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Why?

What question would you want to answer with such an experiment? Please state the questiom precisely!

Then please state which kind of result would give which answer to the question!
 
ergo said:
You're right, pgimeno. The first result would not completely convince me. It would help your case a lot, though. I will revise my answer to this:

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results.

The latter would go farther in convincing me than the former.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Oystein said:
So beachnut's statement was irrelevant? Ok, I can agree with that - at least the "steel cutting" portion there of. The rest of the remark - that paper has a higher energy density than thermite - is somewhat relevant.
Click to expand...

I agree, but probably not for the same reason you do. But if you can break your habit of ignoring questions that threaten the validity of your opinions, go ahead and explain why you think his statement was relevant.
 
ergo said:
Do you understand how to disprove an experimental finding?
Click to expand...

Yes, I formulate my theory thus that it can be falsified by experiment, then design the experiment such that I can specify which test result will falsify the theory.

That's what I meant by my question "Why?" Why would "A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results" falsify their conclusion that the red-gray chips are active thermitic material?

Please state the theory. Such that it is falsifiable.
Design the experiment "test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere"
Specify the "exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results"
And explain why these results would falsify the theory!
 
I see that even the truthers will not commit to acknowledging that the specimens a,b,c,d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material even though this is concluded in the paper and debunkers acknowledge this to be the case,

It's a pretty poor showing when they cite a paper for evidence but refuse to acknowledge the specific conclusion.

N.B This is specific to the Millette study, If they dare to acknowledge I'll show why. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
I see that even the truthers will not commit to acknowledging that the specimens a,b,c,d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material even though this is concluded in the paper and debunkers acknowledge this to be the case,
Click to expand...

Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? ;))

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? ;) How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.
Click to expand...
There was no melted steel at the WTC, and Millette confirms no thermite.

The point is the office fires were equal in heat energy to over 2,500 TONS of Thermite. Office fires beat 2,500 TONS of Thermite.

I don't need to cut steel to destroy a building - office fire said this. Thermite weak, office fire strong. Did you try to look up how much heat the office fire in the WTC had? You could us math and fires science to calculate this, why not do it?

woodsteelfire.jpg

Steel fails in fire, it is called science. The same science is used by Millette to show there is no thermite in the dust at the WTC.

Millette finds no thermite, and there was no damage from thermite. You would clearly find iron fused to steel in the WTC if thermite was used, and it was not found. Millette confirms this. 911 truth fools a few, guess they failed to take chemistry.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.

Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? ;))

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
Click to expand...

Ergo:
1) Sigh... Any organic matrix, including organic polymers, would simply burn at such circumstances (e.g. during heating in DSC under air), there is no need to prove it. It has been acknowledged for tens of thousands years by mankind that organic stuffs burn, only you seem to miss this fact;)
Definition from Wiki for you: "Combustion or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. The release of heat can produce light in the form of either glowing or a flame. Fuels of interest often include organic compounds (especially hydrocarbons) in the gas, liquid or solid phase."
You do not agree? Do you know some example of endothermic burning/ combustion and/or e.g. of flame colder than surrounding air???

2) Sunstealer is right: Bentham chips (a) to (d) are clearly different material than MEK chip for numerous reasons. They were summarized e.g. in Oystein's article Why red-gray chips aren't all the same.

3) Yes, Millette ruled out Tnemec primer in his Progress Report, because of missing larger peaks of zinc and chromium in XEDS spectra.
As for your: "Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC". WTF? You seem to be confused in this respect: a) The comparison of behavior (e.g. solubility) of red/gray chips with one particular, moreover unspecified paint is one of the biggest flaws of Bentham paper. Perhaps it is even more idiotic than infamous "search for thermitic reaction under air". Many paints are soluble in some solvents, many other paints are insoluble, period. b) We do not see any DSC of any paint used for comparison in Bentham paper. You simply lie (or your memory is not working reliably).
 
Last edited:
Ivan Kminek said:
...
b) We do not see any DSC of any paint used for comparison in Bentham paper. You simply lie (or your memory is not working reliably).
Click to expand...

Correct. But...

Perhaps ergo is alluding to a videotaped ae911t interview with Farrer, who there states verbally that he has also tested some paint (or paints?) in the DSC and found them to display a very broad peak.

Of course this suffers from the same problem as the idiotic solubility tests: With thousands of paints out there in millions of conditions, this comparison is worthless. Especially since he definitely didn't test any known LaClede shop primer.
 
Oystein said:
Of course this suffers from the same problem as the idiotic solubility tests: With thousands of paints out there in millions of conditions, this comparison is worthless. Especially since he definitely didn't test any known LaClede shop primer.
Click to expand...

How many paints were they supposed to test that would satisfy the legions of anonymous internet "debunkers" for many years to come? Seriously, wtf are you expecting? And how many paints have YOU tested? Zero. You've tested absolutely zero.

While they tested several different paints and noted the significant differences in properties to those of the red-grey chips, you have tested none, and are GUESSING that there might yet be some paints that don't dissolve in MEK and that will combust at 430 deg C, produce bright flashes and maybe even microspheres! You're just GUESSING, and you expect those who have done real work on the matter, those who have expertise that NONE OF YOU HAVE to engage you in your silly protestations. What the hell are you going to do when you can't prove Laclede paint either? How silly does this have to get??

Surely you have enough sense to occasionally get a glimmer how childish your claims appear to others. Start doing some real work, and then maybe you'll get the audience you seek.
 
Ergo:
Just for your information: I am not an anonymous internet debunker. I have used my full name from the very beginning here. I am a polymer chemist working in Czech Academy of Sciences with about 50 peer-reviewed papers in the field (try Google Scholar or better the Web of Science).

I am fully qualified to claim for sure that some paints (their polymer binders) are insoluble e.g. in MEK (cross-linked), others are soluble (linear). This belongs to very basics of polymer chemistry and at least Harrit (as a chemist) should now it. The dissolution of hundreds of various polymers in tens of solvents is my everyday job for more than 25 years:cool:

Therefore I stand on my claim that a comparison of solubility of MEK chip with the solubility of some unspecified paint is just childish idiocy without any value;)
 
ergo said:
How many paints were they supposed to test that would satisfy the legions of anonymous internet "debunkers" for many years to come? Seriously, wtf are you expecting? And how many paints have YOU tested? Zero. You've tested absolutely zero.
...
Click to expand...

Well, yes, of course. Because testing random paints is a stupid thing to do and doesn't answer the question that the Betham paper sought to answer.

ergo, do you recall what that question was? And what was the answer given by Harrit e.al.? Can you please explain how testing random paints would confirm or refute these answers?
 
ergo said:
Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint.
Click to expand...
Millette selected for further analysis specifically chips with the same XEDS spectra as those in figure 6 a-d. Among these chips Millette didn't find any which matched Tnemec paint. But some of the XEDS spectra in other chips he analyzed but did not select for further analysis do match Tnemec.

It is therefore misleading to say that Millette "rules out" Tnemec paint, given that he selected specifically those that more probably are LaClede primer and left the rest, including those which could match Tnemec, apart.
 
ergo said:
Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? ;))

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
Click to expand...
Sigh. So you won't commit to saying a=b=c=d then? The paper concludes this. I conclude this. But you don't.

If not why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom