Miragememories
Banned
SPAM deleted.
Lying is permitted in this forum and so is ignoring pertinent data.
Millette studiously avoided conclusive testing.
Read through this thread carefully if you want a more complete picture.
MM
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
SPAM deleted.
Lying is permitted in this forum and so is ignoring pertinent data.
Millette studiously avoided conclusive testing.
Read through this thread carefully if you want a more complete picture.
MM
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Nothing is being ignored by us. We are actually willing to discuss the Harrit paper.
I did notice you refuse to answer the question about samples A-D being the same. Why's that?
How so? Please be specific.
We have. You seem to be the one avoiding the subject.
BTW: Do your boys ever plan to release all the data they're holding back? Why don't you want them to release all thier data? We'd like to see it.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Once again I shall ask you directly:
Do you agree that samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It's odd how we're the ones refusing to discuss this but, they can answer a question or release important data.
Who's actually hiding something?
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Incidentally, I am more than willing to ask the mods to arrange for a separate, single, moderated thread for Georgio and I (and us only*) to go through the data for samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper, one figure at a time and then compare the data from Millette, if he was willing and honestly committed to do so. However, it would require honesty to do this and that would go for anyone else.
It would employ a format of posting the data from samples a, b, c and d, starting with Fig 2 from Harrit et al and ending with Fig 11, analysing that data and then comparing equivalent data from Millette using the same criteria and technique. There would be no need for Georgio to have any technical knowledge of the methods employed such as SEM or understand, at a deeper level, some of the nuances regarding such methods. Any technical information provided would be referenced so anyone could follow.
It's not hard. It really isn't. Anyone can do it. I can take any honest person through the analysis as long as they are willing to stick to the topic and employ their own thoughts and words as well as answer any simple questions posed. The questions would be completely non-technical, simple in nature and based on observation of the data only.
*A separate "free for all" thread could be made for discussion of the thread so as to keep the original free from derails and spam as well as ensure that I am fair in the questions I ask and the way I go about it.
I know I can be a bit short, acerbic, irritable and dismissive, but this is mostly driven by the dishonesty of others, off-topic posting and a lack of answering simple questions.
It would employ a format of posting the data from samples a, b, c and d, starting with Fig 2 from Harrit et al and ending with Fig 11, analysing that data and then comparing equivalent data from Millette using the same criteria and technique. There would be no need for Georgio to have any technical knowledge of the methods employed such as SEM or understand, at a deeper level, some of the nuances regarding such methods. Any technical information provided would be referenced so anyone could follow.
It's not hard. It really isn't. Anyone can do it. I can take any honest person through the analysis as long as they are willing to stick to the topic and employ their own thoughts and words as well as answer any simple questions posed. The questions would be completely non-technical, simple in nature and based on observation of the data only.
*A separate "free for all" thread could be made for discussion of the thread so as to keep the original free from derails and spam as well as ensure that I am fair in the questions I ask and the way I go about it.
I know I can be a bit short, acerbic, irritable and dismissive, but this is mostly driven by the dishonesty of others, off-topic posting and a lack of answering simple questions.
Last edited:
OMG no mention of iron-rich microspheres or have you given up on that one MM ?
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
Harrit et al didn't find thermite in their own paper. Millette, whether unpublished or not, simply confirms what the findings should have been of the original Harrit paper; No Thermite.
Errors fixed
I would be happy to do this but I'm a bit worried that my lack of knowledge in these subjects would make me unable to formulate very good questions.
This is going to sound like I just want you to do all the work, but I promise that isn't it! I think it would be better if you could write a really thorough, step-by-step, and side by side comparison and refutation of the Harrit paper, assuming no knowledge of the processes involved but not glossing over anything.
A full, side by side refutation showing figures from both papers together would be really valuable to non-specialists.
I would be happy to prepare an annotated copy of the Harrit paper, going through it sentence by sentence and including what I, as a non-specialist, think should be covered.
Whichever way we end up doing this, thank you in advance for taking the time to explain this properly. If Harrit et al's claims really are baseless - then the reasons therefore cannot be repeated or clarified often enough.
However, I still stand by what I said before. A paper must be published and peer-reviewed. I don't know if I would be saying this if a great many people hadn't used peer-review as their central argument against the Harrit paper, but they did, and to many of those people, as soon as we're talking about Millette not Harrit et al, suddenly the peer-review process doesn't seem so important.
Completely seriously, couldn't Millette pass the data on to you and you write the paper, Sunstealer? (OK, I do want you to do all the work!)
MileHighMadness
Muse
I see Mark Basile got his money...when do we hope to see the results of his testing?
Georgio, obviously I am not speaking for Sunstealer.
Completely seriously, why don't you pass the following link to Harrit et al and ask them for an opinion ?
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
This way you will have questions to ask Sunstealer.
To date there has been NO response apart from Steven Jones saying Millette must have the wrong chips.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Well, there are other arguments, to be fair. Just off the top of my head I can think of these: 1) Millette never did a DSC test on his chips. 2) Millette never studied the iron-rich spheres. 3) Millette didn't give a thorough enough chain of custody explanation of the chips he studied. And of course, the non-argument that his preliminary paper has not been peer-reviewed. Both the Bentham paper and the Millette paper have been attacked or ignored for this reason. I appreciate that people like Sunstealer and Oystein and Ivan and many others have actually looked at the science in the Bentham paper and assert that the data from both the Jones/Harrit paper and Millette doesn't support the assertion of thermite.
Last edited:
Yeah, it would be a nice change if they ever addressed what Millette did.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Pgimeno and other friends,
You have no idea how restrained I've been in my comments re this whole dust "debate." Hopefully I will have time in February to put out a more complete summary of the full extent of what I've learned. I think I'm ready to put out a last YouTube video or two, stick around to respond to questions, then just more or less withdraw from the whole 9/11 debate, as Ryan Mackey, Gravy and so many others have. It's become very unrewarding. As for Sunstealer and Georgio, I applaud G's courage but he admits he is not really qualified to engage in such a discussion with Sunstealer. I wish Kevin Ryan or Mark Basile or someone with relatively more knowledge of chemistry would show similar courage and honesty. Georgio, if you DO take this on, do as I have done and ask for help from others. I'm sure Sunstealer would be happy to let you summarize their answers and responses from others, as long as you (and they) stay on point, point by point.
You have no idea how restrained I've been in my comments re this whole dust "debate." Hopefully I will have time in February to put out a more complete summary of the full extent of what I've learned. I think I'm ready to put out a last YouTube video or two, stick around to respond to questions, then just more or less withdraw from the whole 9/11 debate, as Ryan Mackey, Gravy and so many others have. It's become very unrewarding. As for Sunstealer and Georgio, I applaud G's courage but he admits he is not really qualified to engage in such a discussion with Sunstealer. I wish Kevin Ryan or Mark Basile or someone with relatively more knowledge of chemistry would show similar courage and honesty. Georgio, if you DO take this on, do as I have done and ask for help from others. I'm sure Sunstealer would be happy to let you summarize their answers and responses from others, as long as you (and they) stay on point, point by point.
Hi Chris,
As I understand it, the iron-rich microspheres are a red herring. Dave Thomas found them burning steel in a barrel, Ivan found them by heating rusted paint. They are nothing more than sparks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-_iUaJXh0I&feature=youtube
The truthers claim is you can only get iron-rich microspheres in Thermite. Which we know is not true.
DSC is not necessary to establish if the material is Thermite.
As far as the paper being peer reviewed, why bother if no one has responded.
We now have Mark Basile having a go. How is he going to get a chain of custody for his chips ? They were asking on the Internet for dust
you could give them anything and they would be happy as long as it has rust and aluminium in it.
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Harrit never did a DSC test on his Delassio/Breidenbach sample #2. According to Fig. 19 on page 20, he shows results for MacKinlay 1, MacKinlay 2, Intermont, and White samples.
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,461
Millette went clearly above and beyond the Harrit clown car. IIRC he presented his findings before the relevant professional society. Meanwhile Harrit pulls the wool over the gullible by publishing in fake journals reviewed by other truthers.
All we have left is the mantra chanting of people like MM about DSC pretending it's necessary because other truthers claim it is.
All we have left is the mantra chanting of people like MM about DSC pretending it's necessary because other truthers claim it is.
The irony of DSC, it is not used for this kind of nonsense.
The irony of these DSCs. They don't match.
Jones and Harrit did a test not needed, and it proves their sample is not thermite. No match. Thermite followers can't see? Is that the conclusion?
Why would Milette do a DSC? No one can explain why it would be used?
NoahFence
Banned
My question is why would anybody waste any time "studying" dust samples from the WTC.
Only an idiot of galactic proportion would ever consider anything other than aircraft impacts and resulting fires as the cause. Why do truthers pretend that 9/11 happened hundreds of years ago, and thus is contaminated with a narrative changed over time from generation to generation?
This happened RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES.
Only an idiot of galactic proportion would ever consider anything other than aircraft impacts and resulting fires as the cause. Why do truthers pretend that 9/11 happened hundreds of years ago, and thus is contaminated with a narrative changed over time from generation to generation?
This happened RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES.