• 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

Spanx said:
Perhaps you could explain to Georgio how the resistance test or the DSC can help you establish if a material is thermite ?
Click to expand...

Further explanation from me is not necessary.

A DSC test is not required to generate the required heat to ignite candidate chips from the 9/11 WTC dust. Millette's muffle furnace would have handled the job quite easily.

For those with an untrained eye, the resistance test simply provides an easy means of eliminating red primer paint chips.

Anyone interested should simply read the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Anyone interested should simply read the 2009 Bentham paper.

MM
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the paper. It's clear you don't understand the questions asked or you're simply dodging.

In the Harrit paper, where do they state what you claim is the method for separating samples? If it doesn't, then how could anyone duplicate the study?
 
Miragememories said:
The resistance test simply provides an easy means of eliminating red primer paint chips for those with an untrained eye.

Anyone interested should simply read the 2009 Bentham paper.
Click to expand...

I did earlier, for about the 20th time.

There is nothing in there about the resistance test being used as a selection criterion for candidate chips. It was used, post chip-selection, to show that they had lower resistivity than pure paint. It's in the paper, in black & white.

If you disagree then point me to the part of the paper that supports your claim.
 
Miragememories said:
The resistance test simply provides an easy means of eliminating red primer paint chips for those with an untrained eye.

MM
Click to expand...

When scientists write papers, they do so with the provision that others could duplicate their work. "A trained eye" is not something they use as a classification requirement. You're joking about this, right? :p
 
Last edited:
Spanx said:
Perhaps you could explain to Georgio how the resistance test or the DSC can help you establish if a material is thermite ?
Click to expand...

DGM said:
Maybe you should read the paper. It's clear you don't understand the questions asked or you're simply dodging.

In the Harrit paper, where do they state what you claim is the method for separating samples? If it doesn't, then how could anyone duplicate the study?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read this thread instead of asking others to do it for you.

MM
 
GlennB said:
I did earlier, for about the 20th time.

There is nothing in there about the resistance test being used as a selection criterion for candidate chips. It was used, post chip-selection, to show that they had lower resistivity than pure paint. It's in the paper, in black & white.

If you disagree then point me to the part of the paper that supports your claim.
Click to expand...

It is in that paper that the chips of interest were found to have very low resistance.

This is old ground you are digging up Glenn.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
It is in that paper that the chips of interest were found to have very low resistance.
Click to expand...

True, relative to plain painted surfaces, as clearly stated in the Bentham paper.

But their low resistivity was not a selection criterion. Big difference. The resistivity question arose after they were selected.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
I did earlier, for about the 20th time.

There is nothing in there about the resistance test being used as a selection criterion for candidate chips. It was used, post chip-selection, to show that they had lower resistivity than pure paint. It's in the paper, in black & white.

If you disagree then point me to the part of the paper that supports your claim.
Click to expand...

Miragememories said:
It is in that paper that the chips of interest were found to have very low resistance.
Click to expand...

That's completely non-responsive. If you could contest Glenn's point, you would, isn't that so? If the paper cited either the resistance test or a "trained eye" as a selection mechanism, you would cite it to that effect, wouldn't you?

This is indeed familiar ground.
 
Miragememories said:
Maybe you should re-read this thread instead of asking others to do it for you.

MM
Click to expand...
We're talking about the paper not what you said in this thread. I know what was said OUTSIDE of the paper.

Care to show where electrical resistance is stated as part of the separation process?

Honest question, Using the paper (and the paper only), can someone duplicate their results? If yes, show where they explain how to separate the dust samples into chips of interest. Not a trick question, a page number will do.
 
GlennB said:
True, relative to plain painted surfaces as clearly stated in the Bentham paper.

But their low resitivity was not a selection criterion. Big difference. The resistivity question arose after they were selected.
Click to expand...

Since the low resistivity was found for all the chips of interest and reported in the same paper, it most definitely qualified as selection criteria.

If some of the chips of interest had been found to be inconsistent, (high resistance), the resistance test would have had no value.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Since the low resistivity was found for all the chips of interest and reported in the same paper, it most definitely qualified as selection criteria.

If some of the chips of interest had been found to be inconsistent, (high resistance), the resistance test would have had no value.

MM
Click to expand...
What chips of similar primary separation were rejected? Are you saying chips could match exactly and still be wrong?
 
DGM said:
"We're talking about the paper not what you said in this thread. I know what was said OUTSIDE of the paper.
. . .

Honest question, Using the paper (and the paper only), can someone duplicate their results? If yes, show where they explain how to separate the dust samples into chips of interest. Not a trick question, a page number will do."
Click to expand...

Y E S

1) Obtain bag of original 9/11 WTC dust.
2) Use a magnet to collect dust chips from said bag.
3) Isolate red/gray chips from this collection.

At this point a researcher will be expected to have a large collection of similar looking red/gray chips.

Because the vast majority of those chips from the initial collection pile will be red steel primer paint, those will fail to produce test results comparable to those obtained in the 2009 Bentham paper.

But, SOME of those chips will be 'chips of interest'.

Endless +430C heat testing will eventually reveal 'chips of interest'.

Since the scientists discovered that 'chips of interest' consistently displayed a very low electrical resistance reading compared to the paint chips, they gave this mention in their paper as means of reducing the time required.

They did not have to utilize this method themselves because, as they have publicly stated, they learned to visually recognize 'chips of interest'.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Y E S

1) Obtain bag of original 9/11 WTC dust.
2) Use a magnet to collect dust chips from said bag.
3) Isolate red/gray chips from this collection.

At this point a researcher will be expected to have a large collection of similar looking red/gray chips.

Because the vast majority of those chips from the initial collection pile will be red steel primer paint, those will fail to produce test results comparable to those obtained in the 2009 Bentham paper.

But, SOME of those chips will be 'chips of interest'.

Endless +430C heat testing will eventually reveal 'chips of interest'.

Since the scientists discovered that 'chips of interest' consistently displayed a very low electrical resistance reading compared to the paint chips, they gave this mention in their paper as means of reducing the time required.

They did not have to utilize this method themselves because, as they have publicly stated, they learned to visually recognize 'chips of interest'.

MM
Click to expand...
Did any of these chips match samples a-d?
 
Last edited:
House_mouse.jpg



Harrit et al paper:
It's an elephant. Furthermore we did DNA tests, the results we will publish later, but never will.

Millette:
It’s a mouse. Here are the DNA tests results proving it’s a mouse.

Truth Believers:
It’s an elephant. Never mind the DNA tests. Elephant turds coated on steel have low resistivity.
 
BasqueArch said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/House_mouse.jpg[/qimg]


Harrit et al paper:
It's an elephant. Furthermore we did DNA tests, the results we will publish later, but never will.

Millette:
It’s a mouse. Here are the DNA tests results proving it’s a mouse.

Truth Believers:
It’s an elephant. Never mind the DNA tests. Elephant turds coated on steel have low resistivity.
Click to expand...

Well that's what you get when you test mouse DNA and studiously avoid elephant DNA.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Y E S

1) Obtain bag of original 9/11 WTC dust.
2) Use a magnet to collect dust chips from said bag.
3) Isolate red/gray chips from this collection.

At this point a researcher will be expected to have a large collection of similar looking red/gray chips.

Because the vast majority of those chips from the initial collection pile will be red steel primer paint, those will fail to produce test results comparable to those obtained in the 2009 Bentham paper.

But, SOME of those chips will be 'chips of interest'.

Endless +430C heat testing will eventually reveal 'chips of interest'.

Since the scientists discovered that 'chips of interest' consistently displayed a very low electrical resistance reading compared to the paint chips, they gave this mention in their paper as means of reducing the time required.

They did not have to utilize this method themselves because, as they have publicly stated, they learned to visually recognize 'chips of interest'.

MM
Click to expand...
MM this is one of your best, clearest answers to any question yet. People may disagree with you but you stated your case well.

You got all whipped up about my nonresponse to you recently. I don't bother responding when I ask a question and am told to go do my own research. That's what you said when I asked you why the graph Beachnut "edited" was out of context. You said go read the Bentham paper.

Can you see the difference between the response you gave here and the response you gave me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom