• 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

He wasn't one of the authors. He gets an acknowledgment at the end for 'elucidating discussion' or somesuch.

eta: Basile's own study showed the red layer to be ~90% organic matrix. The paper has been ripped to shreds here and elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
I've always understood the replication process. It's you and Harrit who don't.

I've read your past posts in this thread and see that you think it's the DSC test that would show if someone has the right chips or not.

If the DSC test was SO important in determining if one had the right chips, please answer the following questions.

1. How did Harrit know he had the right chips when they did the torch ignition test? They didn't do a DSC test on those chips.
Click to expand...
because the chips were from his samples

Gamolon said:
2. They didn't do a DSC test on ANY chips from the Delassio sample, yet Harrit claims that ALL the samples contained thermitic material. How did he know they had the right chips when no DSC test was preformed on the Delassio sample?
Click to expand...
now it would have been nice to test the delassia sample I admit!

Gamolon said:
You see Senemut, Harrit and his group didn't even replicate their own experiments. They did random tests on random chips. Do you understand what this means? You are requesting that Millette replicate ALL tests on EVERY chips, yet are fine with Harrit not doing it.

You're showing your bias here.
Click to expand...

those were from his sample. millette has follow the scientific method to say either his chips are similar or different.
 
Gamolon said:
I'll make this real simple.

You keep saying the DSC test was THE test to determine if one had the right chips.

Why do you support Harrit's paper when the DSC test was NOT performed on many of the chips tested in the paper thus creating doubt that he even HAD the right chips?
Click to expand...

im saying follow the scientific method.
 
Senenmut said:
those were from his sample. millette has follow the scientific method to say either his chips are similar or different.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Once again...

What tests should Millette have done on the chips AFTER he isolated them using the red/gray layer and magnetic criteria laid out in the Bentham paper?

According to Harrit and his paper, anyone who has WTC dust samples can find thermitic chips by simply dragging a magnet over the WTC dust sample and taking out any chips that are red/gray. Isn't that what Harrit's paper concludes?
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
im saying follow the scientific method.
Click to expand...
And what is contained in YOUR description of "scientific method" in this case? Is it the replication of tests in Harrit's paper or something else?
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
they had their samples and millette had his samples. the scientific method concerning replication of experiments would have either found millette chips the same or different.
Click to expand...
Wait.

You answered my question above already.

Your definition of "scientific method" in this case is to replicate the tests in Harrit's Bentham paper.

That means that you think the following should have happened:
1. Get pile of WTC dust
2. Drag a magnet over it
3. Remove chips with red/gray layers
4. Take a number of those isolated chips and perform ALL tests on each one to see what the results are.

Did I get this right Senenmut?
 
Gamolon said:
The point is that Harrit's conclusion was proven wrong when Millette found different chips. Until that is addressed, Harrit's paper is garbage.
Click to expand...
I agree with this but I think a better description than 'garbage' would be 'incomplete and inconclusive in its present form'. At the moment, due to the problems with the selection criteria, the paper's results cannot be called conclusive. More data needs to be collected under stricter selection critera, and people need to start working together - this has been mentioned before - on selection criteria that everyone can agree will yield good quality data.
 
Gamolon said:
:rolleyes:

Once again...

What tests should Millette have done on the chips AFTER he isolated them using the red/gray layer and magnetic criteria laid out in the Bentham paper?

According to Harrit and his paper, anyone who has WTC dust samples can find thermitic chips by simply dragging a magnet over the WTC dust sample and taking out any chips that are red/gray. Isn't that what Harrit's paper concludes?
Click to expand...
Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_(scientific_method)
 
Gamolon said:
Wait.

You answered my question above already.

Your definition of "scientific method" in this case is to replicate the tests in Harrit's Bentham paper.

That means that you think the following should have happened:
1. Get pile of WTC dust
2. Drag a magnet over it
3. Remove chips with red/gray layers
4. if your going to try and replicate the study and say the chips in millettes samples are the same or different, then you gotta replicate the tests. and then from what you state:Take a number of those isolated chips and test a fewto see what the results are.

Did I get this right Senenmut?
Click to expand...

in green
 
Senenmut said:
Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_(scientific_method)
Click to expand...

Repeating the experiment exactly will only check a researcher's method, not his conclusion. You could repeat Harrit's entire paper, and get a different result, namely, that the residue is not necessarily from thermite. Unless you have a run of bad luck I guess, as you presume Millette had.:rolleyes:
 
Senenmut said:
Reproducibility is the ability of an entire experiment or study to be reproduced, either by the researcher or by someone else working independently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_(scientific_method)
Click to expand...

You keep quoting this as if it somehow puts Millette in the wrong. Patently, it doesn't.

It doesn't say, for instance, that "the scientific method" requires Millette to perform every procedure that Harrit et al. performed. There's no way to wrest that inference from this definition. Reproducibility entails that it must be possible to reproduce every part of a study, not that all future researchers are required to do so.

If there is a reproducibility problem here, it is Harrit et al.'s. Millette followed the selection procedure described in Harrit et al. and found chips that do not contain thermite. It has been suggested from time to time that Harrit et al. used additional selection criteria not specified in the paper; if so, then a flaw in the paper made it irreproducible. But it's very plausible that Harrit et al.'s chips no more contained thermite than Millette's did, and that Harrit et al.'s findings simply don't demonstrate the presence of thermite.

You may suspect that Millette's chips were tampered with somehow. But heating them to 430C wouldn't be a crucial test of whether they were tampered with. It also wouldn't be a crucial test of whether they contain thermite. If you can't find an actual scientific rationale for doing it, repeatedly pasting a Wikipedia definition of "reproducibility" won't help.

You are free to repeat yourself in lieu of argument.
 
MarkLindeman said:
You keep quoting this as if it somehow puts Millette in the wrong. Patently, it doesn't.

It doesn't say, for instance, that "the scientific method" requires Millette to perform every procedure that Harrit et al. performed. There's no way to wrest that inference from this definition. Reproducibility entails that it must be possible to reproduce every part of a study, not that all future researchers are required to do so.
Click to expand...

We all share your pain in trying to deal with the schtick of Senenmut, MM and all. But they're able to latch onto this one nit and pick it to death. Defending the position is much more important than the substance of the argument.

MarkLindeman said:
You are free to repeat yourself in lieu of argument.
Click to expand...

He will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom