WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

[Georgio]

I've been thinking about this and I really don't think that me and Sunstealer having a thread on our own is the best way of doing this, although I am still willing to do it.

After reading chrismohr's post above, I thought of another idea – we have a thread where we sort of 'sign' a petition asking something along the lines of, 'Who would like to see a moderated thread between Sunstealer (or someone equally qualified) and any of the authors of the Bentham Open Paper, preferably Niels Harrit or Steven Jones?'

We'd leave the thread open for a week or so, and then with all the names we could compose a PROPER INVITE to a debate 'from the JREF forum' which could be openly posted on the forums and individually sent to the Bentham Open authors.

Post after post, from both sides of the argument, 'asking' why people don't say something about this or that aspect of their research is useless. Let's invite them sincerely, respectfully and, for want of a better term, officially (from the forum) to discuss the paper on a moderated thread here.

 

[MarkLindeman]

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.

Who are those people, what is your basis for saying that peer-review was their "central argument," and why does it matter what those particular people said anyway? Are they authorities?

Certainly I remember a lot of people arguing that publication in the Open Chemical Physics Journal didn't guarantee accuracy. Whether any of those people argued that publication in a credible journal would guarantee accuracy, I don't know.

That argument is wrong, of course. Publication even in a good journal counts as some warrant that several people deemed an article worthy of a wider readership, but no warrant of what that wider readership will think. Practicing scientists generally prefer to evaluate work on its merits directly; whether and where the work is published is at best a hint.

There is nothing inconsistent about scoffing at the editorial standards of the OCPJ while finding Millette's working paper well-done. They're incommensurable. If no one had a substantive critique of Harrit et al., that would be quite another matter, but it wouldn't be resolved by publishing the Millette paper.

 

[Miragememories]

I've been thinking about this and I really don't think that me and Sunstealer having a thread on our own is the best way of doing this, although I am still willing to do it.

After reading chrismohr's post above, I thought of another idea – we have a thread where we sort of 'sign' a petition asking something along the lines of, 'Who would like to see a moderated thread between Sunstealer (or someone equally qualified) and any of the authors of the Bentham Open Paper, preferably Niels Harrit or Steven Jones?'

We'd leave the thread open for a week or so, and then with all the names we could compose a PROPER INVITE to a debate 'from the JREF forum' which could be openly posted on the forums and individually sent to the Bentham Open authors.

Post after post, from both sides of the argument, 'asking' why people don't say something about this or that aspect of their research is useless. Let's invite them sincerely, respectfully and, for want of a better term, officially (from the forum) to discuss the paper on a moderated thread here.

Read the thread.

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.

This forum is too disreputable and lying is permitted.

Sunstealer has lied and so has the infamous Oystein.

They love you here only so long as you toe their line.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Read the thread.

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.

This forum is too disreputable and lying is permitted.

Sunstealer has lied and so has the infamous Oystein.

They love you here only so long as you toe their line.

MM

Of course you could provide citations to back up your slanderous accusations that they've lied, right? How about a post number? Here - I'll show you how it's done.

YOU have lied. That's my accusation. Here's my proof:

Sunstealer has lied and so has the infamous Oystein.

Your turn.

 

[DGM]

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.

They have no reason to release all their data also?

Strange a seeker of truth, like yourself, would not be interested in the data they refuse to disclose.

That sounds like a real cover up.

 

[Spanx]

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.


MM

Jones says he is to busy on another project, I guess the government killing thousands of people is not important anymore.

Harrit, well how is he going to make any cash on a forum ?

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-02-...e-study-coming-within-weeks-dr-james-millette

What do you think Georgio ? As far as I can see, they had come to their conclusion before even reading Millette's work.

 

[Richard the G]

Read the thread.

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.

This forum is too disreputable and lying is permitted.

Sunstealer has lied and so has the infamous Oystein.

MM

Well so has Dr Harrit and Dr Jones so they would be in good company

 

[beachnut]

Read the thread.

You will not persuade Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones etc to respond to this site under any circumstances.

This forum is too disreputable and lying is permitted.

Sunstealer has lied and so has the infamous Oystein.

They love you here only so long as you toe their line.

MM

Jones has the lie. Jones has a fantasy thermite destroyed the WTC. When we check the evidence, we find no thermite products in any WTC debris. No damage to any WTC steel from termite. We have Jones spreading an idiotic lie because he is anti-war, or anti-government. At least Jones work on Christ walking the new world is not stained by this outrageous lie of thermite.


Now step back and Look where we are at?
Does it say News?
Current Events?
No, we are in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, where crazy claims are discussed. Thermite is a crazy claim, guess where it is placed?

Jones and Harrit did not find thermite, they discovered how to fool people who can't do science, fool people who have no practical experience with chemistry, and the big reason they fool people who can't comprehend the written word. The Jones/Harrit paper does not prove thermite was in the dust.
The paper proves nothing.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg
Do the curves match? No.
No one in 911 truth can explain why the curves do not match. It debunks the paper. The Jones paper is a Gish Gallop of nonsense.

Jones and Harrit can't come here, they will be exposed as frauds who believe in a fantasy while ignoring thousands murdered on 911. Spreading silly BS about the murder of thousands. The only weapon they have is the Gish Gallop and fantasy.

12 years, and thermite could be the biggest story in history? No, thermite is a fantasy from a failed physicist who spews nonsense about 911, the US, and other BS. Here we have BS artists lies at a skeptics forum, stuck, not in the News section, not in the reality section; stuck in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section.

If it was news they would be famous, or happily announcing the biggest Pulitzer Prize since Watergate. But lies of thermite are stuck with fantasy, in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section of a skeptics forum.

What I love about fake papers, they don't try to be good at spreading the lie found in the conclusion. Look at the energy in each sample.

The energy in the dust does not match thermite. The energy is all over the place. 911 truth believers in the fantasy of thermite have to be extra credit silly to miss this, and not question it. Why are 911 truth followers gullible?

The office materials have more heat energy per pound than thermite. 911 truth believers bring thermite to their fantasy when in reality the biggest office fires in history had more heat energy than 2,700 TONS of thermite.
2,700 Tons? More heat energy than 5,400,000 pounds of thermite, and we can ignore the measly heat energy equal to 520,000 pounds of thermite in the jet fuel.

Jones and Harrit can't come to a "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section of a forum. It puts their work in the proper place to discuss fantasy. And they can't debate a fantasy, they have no evidence. They can't explain why the DSC does not match, or the energy, without spreading lies.


What part of Millette's paper can you debunk. Not a single part. Do you have his work? Where is your Pulitzer? Any evidence yet?

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

First of all let me apologise. I don't like to break posts up like this as I prefer to reply to all the points as one, however, I think in this case it might help.

I understand such apprehension, however, there wouldn't be any questions that you couldn't answer yourself. I'd look at using a Socratic method and you wouldn't need any technical knowledge to answer the questions.

If the boot were on the other foot then you wouldn't expect me to have extensive electrical engineering knowledge.

This is going to sound like I just want you to do all the work, but I promise that isn't it!

Well yes and no. I'd post Fig 2 to 11, one at a time and ask you some simple questions mostly about what you observe. I'd have to think about it a bit more because it would need to be structured in order to bring Millette's data in but the questions would be the same:

What do you observe? What similarities do you see? What are the differences?

You have posted at a later date asking me some other things so I'll try and address this question and the others later on.

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.

Don't ask for much for ya!

Firstly the data in the Harrit et al paper refutes that paper's false conclusions. I've posted in the main threads showing this. I don't think a single truther has ever posted acknowledging this.

Secondly a side by side comparison takes a huge amount of time just in getting the images from both and producing something that is readable at JREF let alone comment and analysis. I've done plenty before but if no truther honestly comments on the comparisons already made then such work appears to be a waste of time and a purely academic exercise.

I have made some comparisons in this very thread*, however, you have to understand that there are very persistent trolls who will derail and pollute a thread so it's difficult to produce a coherent and consistent thread which is why I'd prefer to have a thread moderated.

* http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9098052&postcount=2440

* http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9231454&postcount=2811

There is very little comment on the above. Instead a truther will say they look the same, but do they behave the same when all data shows that they are one and the same material and therefore would behave the same anyway.

Even when a side by side comparison has been performed like in the above then truthers always seem to make excuses - yes the material is exactly the same, the data shows the same physical characteristics, the same chemical characteristics, but then they want more. There simply isn't any more analysis to do.

Which is one of the reasons behind getting a non-expert to actually look at the images and describe what they see with their own eyes over a period of days and take them through what the expert sees and understands in 10 seconds.

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.

I'm afraid that that would be pointless.

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.

You're welcome.

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.

Peer review and publishing in a reputable journal would be great. However, this means that considerable time is incurred because due process must be followed.

Even if Millette's findings were published in a proper journal I doubt it would have any affect. Hardcore truthers who believe in Harrit's paper would refuse to acknowledge the paper just as they refuse to acknowledge sound analysis of that very paper's data.

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!)

I have said to Chris Mohr in the past that I don't have the time to do so and this is unfortunately still true today. I'm more than happy to review, but I have other commitments that are more important and take up my time.

 

[Sunstealer]

I've been thinking about this and I really don't think that me and Sunstealer having a thread on our own is the best way of doing this, although I am still willing to do it.

After reading chrismohr's post above, I thought of another idea – we have a thread where we sort of 'sign' a petition asking something along the lines of, 'Who would like to see a moderated thread between Sunstealer (or someone equally qualified) and any of the authors of the Bentham Open Paper, preferably Niels Harrit or Steven Jones?'

We'd leave the thread open for a week or so, and then with all the names we could compose a PROPER INVITE to a debate 'from the JREF forum' which could be openly posted on the forums and individually sent to the Bentham Open authors.

Post after post, from both sides of the argument, 'asking' why people don't say something about this or that aspect of their research is useless. Let's invite them sincerely, respectfully and, for want of a better term, officially (from the forum) to discuss the paper on a moderated thread here.

I'm afraid that Harrit or Jones will never agree to this.

 

[remo]

The liars paradigm

"Even if Millette's findings were published in a proper journal I doubt it would have any affect. Hardcore truthers who believe in Harrit's paper would refuse to acknowledge the paper just as they refuse to acknowledge sound analysis of that very paper's data."

****** the 'hardcore truthers' and what you think 'they' would believe. That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no paper published by Millette or you in a proper journal properly answering the Harrit paper.
Until there IS, there ISN'T.
You let science do the review of the paper when it gets published. Leave this branding of what 'hardcore' advocates for 911 truth will do to the bad playwrites. It is not up to individual 'truthers' to decide anything! If the science stacks, the science stacks. That takes time and proper order of things not just filtering through this ROOST. Your 'opinion' - just like mine - means nothing to the science of 911unless it is published properly in the literature. This aint going to happen on jref mate.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

 

[beachnut]

"Even if Millette's findings were published in a proper journal I doubt it would have any affect. Hardcore truthers who believe in Harrit's paper would refuse to acknowledge the paper just as they refuse to acknowledge sound analysis of that very paper's data."

... the 'hardcore truthers' and what you think 'they' would believe. That has nothing to do with the fact that there is no paper published by Millette or you in a proper journal properly answering the Harrit paper.
Until there IS, there ISN'T.
You let science do the review of the paper when it gets published. Leave this branding of what 'hardcore' advocates for 911 truth will do to the bad playwrites. It is not up to individual 'truthers' to decide anything! If the science stacks, the science stacks. That takes time and proper order of things not just filtering through this ROOST. Your 'opinion' - just like mine - means nothing to the science of 911unless it is published properly in the literature. This aint going to happen on jref mate.

It is sad Jones and Harrit lied about thermite. Two old men stuck in a fantasy of woo.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesHarritDelusion.jpg
The lie is seen here, the dust samples don't match the energy of thermite. Lower energy, higher energy and the 911 truth followers, unable to do chemistry fall for the fake conclusion.

Why does the dust not match thermite in energy? Because Jones lied.

Millette already has results, and they match the evidence. No thermite.

12 years of failure, and 911 truth continues to fool those who can't gain knowledge and those who can't use logic to solve 911.

There is no opinion about thermite, it is a fact thermite is a lie started by a failed physics professor at BYU, and embarrassment for BYU.

Why can't you take the time to refute Millette's work? I already have it, why don't you take it apart with evidence?
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Where is your evidence, and why can't you refute Millette's work? Published here, and you can't refute it. Do any 911 truth believers do chemistry? If they did, they would not be 911 truth believers. A simple fact.

Millette's work stands, Jones and Harrit lied about 911, spreading lies about the murder of thousands.

 

[Spanx]

Georgio, as you can see Sunstealer is genuine and willing to explain both papers to you.

As for the hardcore truthers Remo and MM all they are capable of is blurting out rubbish about peer review and lies told on Jref. Neither have anything relavent to say about the papers.

If you decline Sunstealers offer please ask MM or Remo for a thread so they can explain the two papers to you.

 

[Georgio]

Harrit et al should write a paper replicating Millette's testing methods using known 'correct' chips and known 'incorrect' chips, and a side by side replication of the original Bentham Open paper using known 'incorrect' chips.

I'm afraid that Harrit or Jones will never agree to this.

But do we KNOW they wouldn't? Have they ever been properly invited? Or any of the other authors of the paper?

I'd post Fig 2 to 11, one at a time and ask you some simple questions mostly about what you observe. I'd have to think about it a bit more because it would need to be structured in order to bring Millette's data in but the questions would be the same:

What do you observe? What similarities do you see? What are the differences?

Well, that sounds fine. Let's do it - ready when you are!

 

[NoahFence]

But do we KNOW they wouldn't? Have they ever been properly invited? Or any of the other authors of the paper?

Not in the way we KNOW we're the 3rd rock from the sun - but it's a safe assumption based on the fact that they know they're full of it. So they don't want that fact exposed.

 

[Spanx]

But do we KNOW they wouldn't? Have they ever been properly invited? Or any of the other authors of the paper?



This is about as good as it gets.


http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses

It would appear prof jones expected some form of preferential treatment at Jref I guess like at 911blogger.

 

[NoahFence]

This is about as good as it gets.


http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses

It would appear prof jones expected some form of preferential treatment at Jref I guess like at 911blogger.

LOL

They (JREF) "refused" to let him join?

MM - you were looking for a Jones lie? There you go.

 

[chrismohr]

Jones has the lie. Jones has a fantasy thermite destroyed the WTC. When we check the evidence, we find no thermite products in any WTC debris. No damage to any WTC steel from termite. We have Jones spreading an idiotic lie because he is anti-war, or anti-government. At least Jones work on Christ walking the new world is not stained by this outrageous lie of thermite.


Now step back and Look where we are at?
Does it say News?
Current Events?
No, we are in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, where crazy claims are discussed. Thermite is a crazy claim, guess where it is placed?

Jones and Harrit did not find thermite, they discovered how to fool people who can't do science, fool people who have no practical experience with chemistry, and the big reason they fool people who can't comprehend the written word. The Jones/Harrit paper does not prove thermite was in the dust.
The paper proves nothing.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg
Do the curves match? No.
No one in 911 truth can explain why the curves do not match. It debunks the paper. The Jones paper is a Gish Gallop of nonsense.

Jones and Harrit can't come here, they will be exposed as frauds who believe in a fantasy while ignoring thousands murdered on 911. Spreading silly BS about the murder of thousands. The only weapon they have is the Gish Gallop and fantasy.

12 years, and thermite could be the biggest story in history? No, thermite is a fantasy from a failed physicist who spews nonsense about 911, the US, and other BS. Here we have BS artists lies at a skeptics forum, stuck, not in the News section, not in the reality section; stuck in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section.

If it was news they would be famous, or happily announcing the biggest Pulitzer Prize since Watergate. But lies of thermite are stuck with fantasy, in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section of a skeptics forum.

What I love about fake papers, they don't try to be good at spreading the lie found in the conclusion. Look at the energy in each sample.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesHarritDelusion.jpg[/qimg]
The energy in the dust does not match thermite. The energy is all over the place. 911 truth believers in the fantasy of thermite have to be extra credit silly to miss this, and not question it. Why are 911 truth followers gullible?

The office materials have more heat energy per pound than thermite. 911 truth believers bring thermite to their fantasy when in reality the biggest office fires in history had more heat energy than 2,700 TONS of thermite.
2,700 Tons? More heat energy than 5,400,000 pounds of thermite, and we can ignore the measly heat energy equal to 520,000 pounds of thermite in the jet fuel.

Jones and Harrit can't come to a "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section of a forum. It puts their work in the proper place to discuss fantasy. And they can't debate a fantasy, they have no evidence. They can't explain why the DSC does not match, or the energy, without spreading lies.


What part of Millette's paper can you debunk. Not a single part. Do you have his work? Where is your Pulitzer? Any evidence yet?

Beachnut can you expand a bit on this graph (did you create it?) I'd be interested in using a simple visual graph like this for my possible next YouTube video. You've also compared energy releases of paper and other organic materials found in a typical office. If apaper and jet fuel were added to this graph it would be an especially powerful way to easily visualize how not only are the chips a-d not a match for thermite, but that organic materials release much more energy!

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut can you expand a bit on this graph (did you create it?) I'd be interested in using a simple visual graph like this for my possible next YouTube video. You've also compared energy releases of paper and other organic materials found in a typical office. If paper and jet fuel were added to this graph it would be an especially powerful way to easily visualize how not only are the chips a-d not a match for thermite, but that organic materials release much more energy!

The DSC trace is in Jones fraud paper, Fig.(29.)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111JonesDelusion.jpg
Why use a DSC?
The energy release is from Jones Fraud Paper, Fig.(30.)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesHarritDelusion.jpg
It is funny the chips don't match thermite. Do all 911 truth followers need glasses, or are they unable to read graphs, lack math skills?

I did this graph using values from the paper adding wood and jet fuel. Big reason we use oil to run stuff, it has the energy.

We could add plastic and more, take out the HMX and TATB, or not.

 

[Miragememories]

Beachnut can you expand a bit on this graph (did you create it?) I'd be interested in using a simple visual graph like this for my possible next YouTube video. You've also compared energy releases of paper and other organic materials found in a typical office. If apaper and jet fuel were added to this graph it would be an especially powerful way to easily visualize how not only are the chips a-d not a match for thermite, but that organic materials release much more energy!

This is really old regurgitated material Chris.

For a man who credits himself with so much reportage about this topic, I am amazed that you would embarrass yourself by asking for a refresher course.

MM