A Bridge Too Far?
"MM another reason for my burnout is that, for example, you completely misinterpret what I said about Mark Basile."
Believe it or not, it was not my wish or desire to wrongly interpret your words Chris.
The quote below was the line of discourse I was attempting to follow with you;
"But I'm much more interested in investigating the claims.
Iron-rich microspheres? Millette didn't study that yet so I just asked David and Ivan to study it instead.
And both created iron-rich microspheres from burning regular primer paint on steel at temperatures WAY below the melting point of steel or iron!"
Those claims are of great interest to me as well and what I hoped our discussion would tackle.
My concern is that we avoid unnecessary confusion by keeping things on track and in proper context.
Your followup comments about Mark Basile appeared to be an attempt to diminish the quality and integrity of his work as a response to my valid criticism of Dave Thomas's non-laboratory testing and Ivan's dismissive attitude towards his own tests. Ivan even admitted he had access to XEDS but could not be bothered because he was sure he was likely right.
You could have responded to the point I made below but you chose to ignore it in favour of defending bad science;
Chris, is it so unreasonable of me to have suggested that David should have taken a pure sample of comparable steel primer paint and heat tested it in a clean laboratory environment?
Are you interested in the truth or not?
You made no comment to this. Why?
Mark Basile's research is far more in-depth and polished than that of Dave Thomas as you are well aware Chris.
He has reproduced his ignition experiments countless times and I have quoted him extensively.
"MM…accepts the results of Mark Basile's informal experiments (you know, the unpublished, non peer-reviewed ones he did on the WTC chips without having a DSC or thermometer or any other tools to measure what was happening) but rejects Millette because his preliminary report is not fully peer-reviewed."
Your chosen words have very clear meaning and intent Chris.
The language is very clear and very dismissive. I am sure you intended it to be taken as such.
Naturally I took umbrage at your support of findings from a combustion barrel test with 1 hour followup analysis, compared to the work of a chemical engineer who has spent countless hours testing and analyzing materials in a laboratory environment.
Yes Mark Basile lacked a DSC (as does Millette), but he did build a heating apparatus which unlike Dave Thomas's, offered accurate heat control which could be cut off at the point of ignition.
Any heat generated after ignition was coming from the test chip and not some random wood fire or a DSC continuing to climb to 700C.
The quality of Dr. Millette's work is not in question. The problem, as you have been made well aware Chris, is that the evidence points to Millette having performed quality work on the wrong material.
His work presented in the Feb.29, 2012 report has
never been peer-reviewed.
If presentations to a seated audience in a presentation hall constitutes peer-review, than you have to give credit to similar speaking engagements performed by Dr. Jones, Richard Gage et al.
And then you start to revise and soften your comments when challenged.
"As for Mark Basile, he himself has admitted he had fewer measuring instruments than Jones/Harrit et al. That's why he is doing a more thorough study, and I wish him well even as I express frustration that he is going forward with no input from us. He seems more honest than some, to be blunt."
It was Mark Basile who is credited (by Dr. Jones) with having made the original discovery of nanothermite in the 9/11 WTC dust.
Yes Mark wants to leave no stone unturned in his current research in order to satisfy any outstanding questions that still remain. He has not claimed that there is any problem with his previous work.
And then you soften your comment further.
"All I said was that he didn't have as many instruments to measure what was going on as as Harrit/Jones.
So he's organizing a more thorough study than he could do himself, just like I did. Because he is organizing what looks to me like an honest dust study he deserves credit for that (even though I am frustrated that he refused any attempts to get "buyin" from the other side)."
Really there was never not much of a point to be made against Mark Basile. He has done great work and plans to proceed further, with or without your support.
"Accusations from you like Millette's "preplanned report" and that I am operating under "the guise of 'investigative journalism'" and that I am "intolerant" are mean-spirited and the cause of my burnout--from you and many others."
Dr. Millette's report
was a work-in-progress when he accepted that additional $1,000 of our money to supposedly include an investigation of the 2009 Bentham paper findings.
The "laboratory guy" as you described him back then was under obligation to present a dust paper in early 2012 and tagging on the analysis of some easily acquired magnetic red chips fit the ticket nicely.
And yes I have been harsh on you regarding your often claimed status as an "investigative journalist" because you constantly disappoint me and others by how subjective and lightweight your investigations are.
You give far too much credit to the words of anonymous zealots like Sunstealer and Oystein, acquiesce to those in authority like Dr. Millette and the NIST etc., and too often scorn the intensive investigative work performed by scientists like Dr. Harrit, Dr. Jones, Mark Basile etc etc.
If the label fits, fine, but as an investigative journalist, the label does not fit you.
"Yes, I enjoy the advantage of being on the "popular" side here, but what you don't seem to "get" is that I always have looked for reasons to be convinced I am wrong, and wherever I am most uncertain in my understanding, I go there to challenge myself and maybe be proven wrong (the Millette experiment only the biggest example)."
If so, where is your investigative response to Dave's failure to simply test steel primer paint in a clean lab?
Where is your investigation into the errors made in the NIST Report for the collapse of WTC7?
Where is your scientific debunking of the 2009 Bentham paper nanothermite findings?
All I have seen is you constantly looking in directions that you hope will continue to prove you are right. A true investigative journalist is only interested in solving the mystery, not avoiding it whenever possible.
The "popular side" here will always feed you what they want you to believe.
I remember how popular Dr. Frank Greening used to be here until he wore out his welcome by honestly questioning "popular belief".
"I don't blame you if you are more burned out than me, and sure you way get more flack from others than I ever get from you... but still. I am burned out. I'm sick of your accusations and your proclivity to see the worst in me. Repeated personal attacks and accusations on my motives are not truth-seeking, they're just mean and I'm burned out on them. Watch out whenever you think you understand my motives or the motives of others. Your accusations say more about you than they do about me, my friend."
All I ask you respond with true journalistic integrity Chris.
MM
