HotRodDeluxe
Muse
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 692
Last edited:
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
Miragememories
Banned
Wow!Care to elaborate upon these accusations?
I get more impressive replies from the Cleverbot app.
MM
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Actually, Harrit and Jones claimed years ago that they had performed X-ray diffraction and Fourier Transform Infrared analyses of the chips, which are definitive as to the chemical compounds present. (EDX merely tells you what atoms are present, not compounds.)
For some reason, in all these years, they have failed to publish their data anywhere. I wonder why?
Does this mean you will not help with the graph for Chris? Not helping 911 research?
The material is from the thermite fraud paper Jones did. Jones work debunks thermite. Look for yourself? Can you see the fraud?
The old regurgitated material is Jones work. The DSC does not match thermite, Jones work.
The energy in each chip does not match thermite; Jones' work.
Ironically, the failed fantasy of Jones being regurgitated junk. Debunking Jones fake paper.
Can you do the graph adding office contents to the energy graph?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
You made specific and explicit accusation against the forum in general and other members by name.
Put up or retract.
Miragememories
Banned
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Thanks Beachnut this makes it easy to see for anyone!
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
The graph is very telling. MM is handwaving as per usual.
FYI, Jones and Ryan were invited to provide the chips for Millette to test but they refused.
They won't give the "correct" chips to anyone unless they can be confident that will confirm their results. They erred in past with Frédéric Henry-Couannier in that respect; they thought that since he was a truther, he would confirm their findings, but he didn't and they started to discredit him. Same thing with Millette, but they did that as an excuse to not providing the chips.
They do NOT want the truth. They want to protect their investment.
Miragememories
Banned
The graph is meaningless in its lack of context.
A scientist would realize this immediately.
A person eager for a simplistic rendering would swallow the chart hook, line, and sinker.
Enjoy your breakfast.
MM
Miragememories
Banned
bolding is mine
More lying by omission.
Unlike Millette, people like Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Harrit, et al have a limited amount of original 9/11 WTC dust available for testing.
Mark Basile had to obtain his samples directly.
Dr. Millette has justified the concerns of Kevin Ryan.
He has his own ample supply of government supplied 9/11 WTC dust and all the tools necessary to quickly put the nanothermite evidence to bed.
But as we all know, he refuses to run a simple 430C heat test. Even on samples he has finished doing non-destructive testing on.
Why not?
He will either observe paint residue or observe what Dr. Harrit et al observed.
MM
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,696
Why not? Because he has done more definitive testing that absolutely determines what the material is, that's why. But we've explained this to you before and you refuse to understand it. For the record - Dr. Harrit is on record as saying that he has plenty of dust. Besides, it's not like we're asking him/them to send every Tom, Dick, and Harry a huge sample; a few small samples of supposedly "thermitic" chips to one guy would be enough to satisfy us.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
MM since I'm no scientist I don't see the problem with Beachnut's graph. Here's my journalist's takeaway: I asserted years ago in my videos that the DSC readings in the Harrit et al paper were no match for known nanothermite, and that there is a very wide range of energetic releases among chips a-d. I also asserted that thermite does not release as much energy as wood or jet fuel, even though thermite creates very high temperatures for a minute or less.
So here's a simple graph that measures energy releases of chips a-d, energy releases of various incendieries/explosives, and energy releases of wood and jet fuel. This one graph gives an easy-to-understand visual representation of what I and many others here have said. What's the missing context here?
NoahFence
Banned
Doesn't fit the truther narrative. That's all.
Please provide your evidence that Millette's amount of dust is not limited.
Who's lying here?
Not to mention that in a conference they said they had gallons of dust.
Again, please provide any evidence you have for the highlighted part. Otherwise don't complain if I say that's a lie.
See? You can also lie and that's allowed. Are you sure you are not OK with lying being allowed? Would you be OK with facing a suspension for lying so blatantly as you did above? And assuming lying weren't allowed, who judges what is a lie and how? You have no objective criterion when you spread your accusations of lying, and dismiss any possible alternative explanation to lying. Your accusations are dishonest.
You keep claiming he refuses, yet I don't remember seeing a direct refusal from him. Another lie?
But it's irrelevant. He did what he was paid for, namely to determine if the chips in the dust had free aluminium as the Bentham paper claimed, and were therefore thermite. There were serious doubts about that paper, cast by JREF members who analyzed the data in thorough detail, which prompted the need to examine that claim independently.
He used a competent method. He found no free aluminium, contradicting the conclusions in the Harrit et al. paper as already anticipated by Sunstealer and others using their own data.
So we have:
- Negative confirmation: A rebuttal of the original Jones et al. conclusions that there was free aluminium, based on their own data.
- Positive confirmation: An independent analysis that selects chips matching those that were carefully detailed in the Bentham paper, which determines there was no free aluminium.
That should put the aluminium claim, and with it the thermite claim, to rest. And it does, except in Trutherland. No inconclusive, irrelevant DSC test would help change that.
He already tested for elemental aluminium, discarding thermite and proving that what he, as well as Harrit, Jones, etc. had, was paint, which is the best explanation for the absence of free aluminium and the presence of aluminium silicate in the form of kaolinite, iron oxide in the form of nanoparticles, and an epoxy matrix.
As anticipated.
It's truther double standards.
According to them, these:
are obviously the same material, while these:
are obviously not.
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 692
And I've seen higher levels of reasoning in a common slug, but it isn't a competition.
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Pgimeno I am guessing that the second set of graphs refers to the Millette chips vs chips a-d in the Bentham., Can you confirm? And MM it is not obvious to me why you think Beachnut's graph is so useless. Please explain to me clearly what is wrong with using it to show that the energy releases of chips a-d are all over the map and not useful for materials characterization.
They should probably be invited. Otherwise, they can always fall back on that. "Well, noone asked us for the samples, or to redo these tests. How were we supposed to know they wanted it?"
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
That should suit truthers very well. They would feel right at home.