• 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

Yes, that's the same Griscom.

It is true. I read his 12-page peer review. It isn't available online anywhere, but I had a chance to read a paper copy that a German truther, Dirk Gerhardt aka Sitting-Bull showed me.
 
Originally Posted by Oystein
One (perhaps the only one) was David L. Griscom, a fellow truther who had already published in Jones's own "Journal of 9/11 Studies". I have zero doubt that Jones himself (or Harrit, or Ryan) suggested or picked Griscom, and that the actual editors of the journal had no say in it.
Click to expand...

GlennB said:
Thanks for that. If true, this would be the same Griscom who wrote:

"So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts)."

?

i.e. the passengers were part of the conspiracy are all still (or were for a time) alive somewhere?

i.e. batcrap crazy?

Note my bolding ;)
Click to expand...

He has very interesting :eye-poppi ideas about Flight 77 and the Pentagon attack, as well:

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/griscom/PentagonAttack_9-11_v3.3/PentagonAttack_9-11_v3.3.pdf

It was an A-3 Skywarrior converted to an attack drone, guided in by an F-16, or something like that. (It's hard to decipher the ravings of a loony.)
 
Ozeco when I said Ergo was right, I mean that in the narrow sense that the chemists who responded blew off the paper and didn't really make a study of it or even a careful read. Am I misusing the "argument from authority" term when I say that if a chemist links me to this JREF thread and says this paper has no scientific merit, that is indeed argument from authority? Because that doesn't seem a wrong use of the term. Also, argument from authority ian and of itself is not useless. For example, I have a ten-page list of scientific organizations supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and when someone tries to tell me it's a hoax by liberals, I tell them that 98% of all climate scientists agree with the theory opf anthropogenic climate change, and here are all the organizations worldwide who also support it, including many oil business associations. I say I'm no climate scientist so I won't argue the science of it but the argument from auithority carries enough weight for me that I am satisfied and need not investigate a whbole new scientific field. So what I do in that realm is similar to what these chemists have done to me... tell me in no uncertain terms that this paper has no standinsg in the scientific community. I respect that, but I am of course looking for something more and occasionally I do find scientists who will give it to me.
 
chrismohr said:
Ozeco when I said Ergo was right, I mean that in the narrow sense that the chemists who responded blew off the paper and didn't really make a study of it or even a careful read.
Click to expand...

Did they say this or are you assuming this? What's to say they haven't read it and don't want to waste any more time on this paper?
 
chrismohr said:
Am I misusing the "argument from authority"...
Click to expand...

Argument from authority is is only fallacious when it comes to areas which either have a contradictory stance to that which is being proposed, or the area is currently under debate. For example, when truthers and creationists peddle their lists of scientists that is an appeal to authority as those lists do not address the mountains of research in the actual academic world.
 
chrismohr said:
Ozeco when I said Ergo was right, I mean that in the narrow sense that the chemists who responded blew off the paper and didn't really make a study of it or even a careful read. ...
Click to expand...

Reading the title debunks the paper. Anyone can read the paper in seconds and see it is nonsense. If you read for comprehension, you will find major logical errors, and you don't need to know anything about chemistry. The words logically show the paper is speculation at best, knowing chemistry, makes the paper fraud.

Anyone who has critical thinking skills can debunk the paper in their own way. And you don't have to read the paper to debunk it, if the paper title is true to the paper. Happy to see only three people at JREF fall for the failed conclusion of thermite.

I appreciate another study of dust, but it has been over 11 years; like JFK, Chemtrails, and Bigfoot, 911 truth will linger on forever as new gullible followers enter at ground zero, falling into the pit of ignorance (911 truth). Some will climb out and move on, some will wallow in the BS, and dig the pit deeper. 911 truth will take Millette's results, and make up dumber conspiracies. Why did they have to pick the 1984 like name of "truth"? Guess 911 Crazy Fantasies was already taken.
 
DGM said:
Did they say this or are you assuming this? What's to say they haven't read it and don't want to waste any more time on this paper?
Click to expand...
Good point. I did assume they blew it off without reading it. Similar to when someone sends me Nazi *** and I respond by saying this **** makes me throw up. I don't read that *** I guarantee you! BTW no one seemed to get as much of a charge as I did out of the chemist who referred me to my my own thread right here for further research! I got a good laugh out of that.
 
Redwood said:
Poor old Senenmut is digging Jtl and himself into an even deeper hole. If one actually follows Senenmut's link, one sees that they aren't using "silicon" in the thermitic reaction, they are producing elemental silicon by reacting elemental aluminum with silica, SiO2.
Click to expand...

this is interesting paper:
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3996&context=etd
"Fabrication of iron oxide thin films from sol-gel process and thermite reaction of iron oxide induced from a single laser shot"


from the paper:
the thermite reaction between fe2O3 and Si produces metallic Fe and the iron (II) silicate, Fe2SiO4).

Redwood said:
Heaven knows why the Vast Conspiracy needs their thermite to produce elemental silicon! This isn't merely the last nail in the coffin of Harrit's thermite; it's a concrete (melted, maybe? ;)) encasement of the coffin!
Click to expand...
im speculating how those silicon rich micropheres were formed. in the thermitic paper, they show that commercial thermite does have silicon in the micropheres after ignition.

im guessing your under the impression that the kaolin produced the silicon rich micropheres?



Redwood said:
Question for the last remaining Truthers on the S.S. Harrit-Jones: Where is the elemental silicon in the dust samples? (Oh, and where is the alumina necessarily produced by reacting aluminum with either hematite or silica?):rolleyes:
Click to expand...
look above. maybe after the fe2o3 reacts with the silicon shell around the aluminum, then the aluminum can react with the rest of the fe2o3. thats just me speculating....
 
Senenmut said:
this is interesting paper:
...
look above. maybe after the fe2o3 reacts with the silicon shell around the aluminum, then the aluminum can react with the rest of the fe2o3. thats just me speculating....
Click to expand...
There was no thermite used on 911, what a waste of googling. Your last google support for Jones fantasy failed.

How do you explain you picking the wrong method for protecting the Al from oxidizing? Why do you google stuff to support the fantasy of thermite? How do you explain your mistake? You support delusional nonsense by googling stuff you don't understand, offer it up as something, and now you gish gallop away to the next failed support for your fantasy? A failed fantasy you adopted from Jones.

Millette found no thermite, and no thermite damage was found on any WTC steel. You are debunked again. Hurry back.
 
Classic truther googling without understanding what they are referencing - Senenmut is a master specialist in this field.

Unfortunately he hasn't read the paper he is referencing otherwise he would have understood what the author was trying to do, that is produce thin films

From Senenmut's link http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3996&context=etd NB: All typos and mistakes are mine because you can't copy & paste from the document.

Introduction

An interesting aspect of sol-gel derived metal oxide materials made through epoxide catalysis is that they undergo thermite-type reactions with the incorporation of a fuel (e.g. Al) during gelation. Thermal ignition of the metal/oxide gel composites initiates a self-propagating exothermic redox reaction to produce oxides and reduced metal products (e.g. Fe). We report here an investigation of whether thin-film forming properties of the iron oxide/hydroxide gels can be combined with their oxidation-reduction processes to form multilayers if the film is deposited on a silicon substrate which can act as a fuel source.
Click to expand...
Page 30

They are doing this at 300°C.

He would also note that what he is using as evidence for the possibility of Si/Fe2O3 thermite didn't work.

Conclusion

Clearly a key aspect of this interfacial reaction is that it is not a self-sustaining high-temperature reaction such as has been used to produce granular Fe-Al2O3 films from Al and iron oxide bi and multilayers. 44-46 In this system, reduced iron is produced only at the interface and at a temperature well below what is required to initiate combustion of bulk thermite. In fact, attempts to initiate a self-propagating reaction using higher temperatures were not successful.
Click to expand...
Page 37

So another swing and a miss from the great googler. In fact this just goes to show what a poor thermite Fe2O3 and Si would be because they couldn't get it to self sustain at temperatures greater than 300°C.

Pro Tip #1: Read what you are linking to in support of your pet theory.

Pro Tip #2: Understand what you are reading.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
Classic truther googling without understanding what they are referencing - Senenmut is a master specialist in this field.

Unfortunately he hasn't read the paper he is referencing otherwise he would have understood what the author was trying to do, that is produce thin films

From Senenmut's link http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3996&context=etd NB: All typos and mistakes are mine because you can't copy & paste from the document.

Page 30

They are doing this at 300°C.


He would also note that what he is using as evidence for the possibility of Si/Fe2O3 thermite didn't work.

Page 37

So another swing and a miss from the great googler. In fact this just goes to show what a poor thermite Fe2O3 and Si would be because they couldn't get it to self sustain at temperatures greater than 300°C.
Click to expand...

it is an interesting read. did you notice on page 37 the author speaks of Al and iron oxide bi and multilayers. humm didnt jones and basile have some chips that had multilayers?

anyway, it only occured at the interface of the Si wafer so its a no go.

at least im trying to figure out what produced those silicon rich microspheres.

why dont you tell us how they were created.
 
Senenmut said:
this is interesting paper:
http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3996&context=etd
"Fabrication of iron oxide thin films from sol-gel process and thermite reaction of iron oxide induced from a single laser shot"
Click to expand...

It's an interesting paper, indeed; but I'm sure you realize that it has nothing to do with protecting aluminum nanospheres or platelets by encapsulating them in either elemental silicon or in SiO2. I'm sure you're dying to tell us the purpose of a commercial Fe2O3-aluminum thermite having SiO2. I imagine that for certain welding purposes, a small amount of silicon in the iron produced might increase "springiness", but the amount added would be nowhere near the amount of aluminum, or of the Fe2O3. Look at Harrit's XEDS data; the aluminum and silicon peaks are the same size. (But dwarfed by the carbon peak!)
 
Senenmut said:
why dont you tell us how those silicon rich microspheres formed then....
Click to expand...

The only reference I can find to "silicon rich microspheres" in Harrit's paper is a passing mention in describing the residues left after combustion in air. (Page 20) (Reacting under air rather than under an inert atmosphere is the "smoking gun" of Harrit & Jones's incompetence/dishonesty)

Harrit doesn't tell us how he determined they were "silicon rich", other than observation under an optical microscope, which also shows the red color of hematite! Looks like none of the hematite reacted!

Harrit still never explains why silicon is necessary or even useful in his putative thermite; he merely makes the bald assertion that it is "required". (Page 26)

In sum, Harrit and Jones's paper is the worst sort of cargo-cult pseudoscience; they don't even have the excuse of ignorance that South Sea cargo-cultists have. I call shenanigans on the whole thing, including the "silicon rich microspheres".
 
Iron-rich spheres used to be important, now it's silicon-rich spheres? Is the silicon really important? Aren't there hundreds of different kinds of microspheres that were found in the debris? Aren't microspheres of all kinds created in fires all the time? After all, RJ Lee said they were to be expected in the WTC fires, even the iron ones. Since silicon fully melts at around 2500 degrees F, does this mean silicon microspheres in 9/11 Truthland are supposedly created only in fires hotter than 2500 degrees, just like the iron spheres at over 2750 degrees F? Seems like it would be the same old truther/debunker argument in either case. But I read in http://www.phantomsnet.net/cen2010/Orals/CEN2010_XifrePerez.pdf
that "Silicon microspheres are obtained by chemical vapor deposition techniques, using di-silane as a precursor gas," so it's chemistry and not extreme heat that creates this phenomenon in this particular case at least. In another paper, http://users.mrl.uiuc.edu/floren/Thesis/Chapter_6.pdf
silicon microspheres are created at 750 degrees F, no big deal. This needs to be run by Sunstealer or someone in the know; this may well not relate to the silicon-rich spheres in this argument. I freely admit I am just google surfing so I know I could be totally misusing these papers in this discussion. But I literally don't understand the argument here when so many sources of silicon microspheres have nothing to do with 2500 degree-plus temperatures (or providing some kind of shell for nano-particles of thermite???). Remember, the argument seems to be that silicon microspheres somehow offer strong evidence in favor of nanothermite? Seems like just more debris left over from a fire to me and not evidence of anything more. Could this be melted glass debris? Has any serious attempt been made by Harrit et al to eliminate all other possible explanations of this silicon? Seriously? Has Harrit even talked about this much, or is this something being tossed around here that doesn't even play a serious part in Harrit's theory? I certainly don't see it being discussed much in the 2009 paper...
 
Last edited:
I always was under the impression that if Harrit and Jones investigated other major fires besides the WTC, they would declare that ALL fires are caused by thermite.
 
twinstead said:
I always was under the impression that if Harrit and Jones investigated other major fires besides the WTC, they would declare that ALL fires are caused by thermite.
Click to expand...

This is a very important point:

Harrit has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Jones has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Farrer has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Ryan has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Legge has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Gourley has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Farnsworth has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Roberts has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Larsen has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.

All nine of them are the bloodiest of know-nothing amateurs when it comes to forensic research. They have no clue whatsever about what to expect from such events.

Peer-reviewer Griscom has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Contributor Basile has never in his life, before or after, conducted any forensic research.
Two more bloody know-nothing amateurs.


Millette has been running a forensic lab for decades. He is a full-time forensic pro.
Everybody in his company, down to the youngest assistant, is many times better than the other nine authors and their contributors combined when it comes to doing forensic research. Here are some of his skills:

PARTICLE CHARACTERIZATION:

MVA Scientific Consultants has over 20 years of experience in particle characterization. We provide services for particle imaging, sizing, shape analysis, distribution, elemental content, and chemical identification.

Whether you have a concern over particle contamination, particles in the environment or particles used in manufacturing, we can provide the testing and consulting services to meet your needs.

Areas of Expertise Include:​
  • Nanomaterials
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Ambient Air Particles
  • Manufacturing Processes
  • Environmental Samples
CONTAMINATION ANALYSIS:
  • Particle Isolation & Identification
  • Pharmaceutical Tablets, Capsules & Injectables
  • Coatings
  • Powders
  • Food & Beverages
  • Workplace Dusts
  • Residues
  • Stains
  • General Unknown
Nanomaterials Testing Services:
  • Imaging for Morphology and Particle Size
  • Dispersion and Homogeneity
  • Contaminants in Nano-Products
  • Consumer Product Comparison and Analysis
  • Raman Analysis of Carbon Nanomaterials
  • Crystalline Phase Determination by Electron Diffraction and EDS.
  • Analysis of Nanomaterials for Consumer Products
Environmental and Industrial Hygiene Testing Services
  • Dust & Debris
  • Contamination
  • Asbestos
  • Lead Identification
  • Carbon Black
  • Soot
  • Environmental Forensics
  • Stack Samples
  • Waste Material
  • Soil
  • Nanoparticles & Nanofibers
  • Filtration
  • Fly Ash
  • Darkening Agents
  • Litigation Support
Litigation Support Services:
  • Patent Infringement
  • Patent Prosecution
  • Environmental Forensics
  • Asbestos Litigation
  • Product Failure
  • Insurance Investigation
  • Technical Consultation
  • Contaminant Identification
Instrumentation and Techniques:
  • FTIR Spectroscopy
  • Raman Spectroscopy
  • Raman Chemical Imaging
  • Scanning Electron Microscopy
  • Transmission Electron Microscopy
  • Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry
  • Fluorescence Microscopy
  • Optical Microscopy
  • Polarized Light Microscopy
  • Scanning White Light Interference Microscopy
  • Specialized Sample Preparation
  • Ion Milling and Ultramicrotomy


I am sure Farrer knows how to handle his electron microscopes.
I am sure Harrit is a capable chemist
I am sure Jones is an accomplished nuclear physicist
I am sure Farnsworth was a talented physics student
I am sure Ryan tests water like no one else
I am sure Griscom has no equal when it comes to glasses in rock
I am sure Legge, Roberts, Gourley, Basile are all good at their professions.

But they are not the experts to go to when discussing analysis of particles found in the wake of a building destruction. Not a single one of them. Labs like Millette's are the places to go to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom