Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Miragememories]

"One thing was that Griscom pointed out that the red layer is probably red because there are iron oxide grains in it, like in red paints, and that they [the Bentham Paper scientists] should think about if that could be used to make an argument. (They didn't)."

FALSE.

You have no idea what they did or did not "think about", and most certainly they addressed the issue of paint.

MM

 

[Oystein]

FALSE.

You have no idea what they did or did not "think about", and most certainly they addressed the issue of paint.

MM

Remember, MM, the folling is always correct:

I fail to see your point?

Right, you fail to see my point.





Here is the point: The red paint is red, because the iron oxide grains......................? Can you fill in the dots? Perhaps the answer, as a result of Harrit and friends thinking hard and long about Griscom's recommendation, contains the answer?
Or perhaps: "The red layer is red because..........................."
Go, MM. quote the answer, it's in paper - or isn't it?


Alternatively:

Run, MM, runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!

 

[jtl]

Sunstealer: What specific qualification or experience does Griscom have in materials characterisation, materials analysis or forensic metallurgy?

Where are the independent reviewers with relevant qualifications? There aren't any - that's why it was published in a pay to publish journal, whose editor subsequently resigned.

We've been through this hundreds of times. The paper has no merit.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of rule 12.

it should be noted that forensic metallurgy would be useful to study the thermite-cut surface of a metal beam, but studying the chemical reaction of the suspected agent is in the realm of chemical physics, so the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal is the right medium.

Does Griscom have the credentials to review a chemical physics paper? Let´s see:

I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of rule 12.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: Can you fill in the dots?

Griscom: I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!

MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots?

 

[beachnut]

LOL, when your peers are as nuts as you are; Jones and Griscom

MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots?

David L. Griscom, Ph.D. ???

Really, impressive for 911 truth cult members, but crazy to the rational world. Jones paper has not made 60 Minutes? What would be a Pulitzer Prize winning story if true, ends up being the rant of insane old men who have fantasy of thermite.
http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720199/03889269.aspx
Someone who thinks "All Hijacked Passengers Survived" reviewed a paper with a fantasy conclusion, and say it is good.

It gets worse.
http://www.aneta.org/911experiments_com/Griscom/Old911Hypothesis/index.htm
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html
http://www.davidgriscom.com/

 

[Spanx]

Lol

Does anyone fancy having a whip round to get Millette's work peer reviewed in Benthan Science.

Thanks jtl

 

[LSSBB]

Lol

Does anyone fancy having a whip round to get Millette's work peer reviewed in Benthan Science.

Thanks jtl

If we at least have a pair of nut jobs as reviewers, we're on par.

 

[plague311]

Lol

Does anyone fancy having a whip round to get Millette's work peer reviewed in Benthan Science.

Thanks jtl

LoL wouldn't that technically hurt Millettes paper more than help it?

 

[Oystein]

...
Harrit Jones et al state the following.

For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples
were mounted to carbon conductive tabs.
...

Harrit has provided some more detail on their sample holders in a reply to Dennis Rancourt's post-publication peer-review:

http://board.gulli.com/thread/1537495-die-sich-abzeichnende-neue-weltordnung/307/#post13593325


(He commits the error again to mix up tests and results on chips a-d with tests and results on the MEK-chip. I am 99% certain those two sets of experiments were done at widely different times, and probably by different persons; my reason to assume this is the large difference in data quality and systematic approach. So whatever measures of quality control were done on chips a-d - by Jeff Farrer, I think - cannot be applied directly to the MEK-chip - Jones, I suspect, or perhaps Farnsworth).

 

[Miragememories]

Harrit has provided some more detail on their sample holders in a reply to Dennis Rancourt's post-publication peer-review:

http://board.gulli.com/thread/1537495-die-sich-abzeichnende-neue-weltordnung/307/#post13593325


(He commits the error again to mix up tests and results on chips a-d with tests and results on the MEK-chip. I am 99% certain those two sets of experiments were done at widely different times, and probably by different persons; my reason to assume this is the large difference in data quality and systematic approach. So whatever measures of quality control were done on chips a-d - by Jeff Farrer, I think - cannot be applied directly to the MEK-chip - Jones, I suspect, or perhaps Farnsworth).

Thanks for the link Oystein.

But as usual, you ignore everything in Dr. Harrit's lengthy and thoughtful response that is not in agreement with your bs hypothesis.

Truly pathetic on your part, but I do appreciate the link.

MM

 

[jtl]

Thread to discuss the excellent analysis of Jones latest paper

Oystein: Harrit has provided some more detail on their sample holders in a reply to Dennis Rancourt's post-publication peer-review:

http://board.gulli.com/thread/153749.../#post13593325

This is yet another confirmation of the impression I get from this forum, you so called "debunkers" keep repeating hogwash that you know has been debunked long ago.

Edited by Gaspode: Removed breach of rule 12.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed further breach.

For the rest of you lot, it is about time to publish Millette´s paper if you still think that is going to happen at all, which seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Oystein]

Thanks for the link Oystein.

You're welcome.

By the way, you forgot to reply to this:


Remember, MM, the folling is always correct:

I fail to see your point?

Right, you fail to see my point.





Here is the point: The red paint is red, because the iron oxide grains......................? Can you fill in the dots? Perhaps the answer, as a result of Harrit and friends thinking hard and long about Griscom's recommendation, contains the answer?
Or perhaps: "The red layer is red because..........................."
Go, MM. quote the answer, it's in paper - or isn't it?


Alternatively:

Run, MM, runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!

it is about time to publish Millette´s paper if you still think that is going to happen at all, which seems unlikely at this point.

Millette started on his studies in december 2011, if I remember correctly (could be november), created his raw data about a year ago, and presented a good deal of it to us, and to a professional forensic conference in late february 2012 - less than a year ago. His data collection efforts are ongoing. I expect him to publish later this year.

I have a few questions for you:

1. How long ago did Harrit et al. produce their FTIR data?
2. How long ago did Harrit et al. announce that they WILL publish their FTIR data?
3. Do you expect them to actually publish their FTIR data?
4. If yes, when? If not, why not?
5. How long ago did Steven Jones produce his XRD data?
6. Do you expect Steven Jones to publish his XRD data?
7. If yes, when? If not, why not?
8. How long ago did Jeff Farrer produce his TEM data?
9. Do you expect Jeff Farrer to publish his TEM data?
10. If yes, when? If not, why not?

These are ten (10) questions.
I want you to answer all ten (10) questions.
I fully expect you to dodge all ten (10) questions.

Run, jtl, ruuunnnnnnnnnn!

 

[Miragememories]

You're welcome.

By the way, you forgot to reply to this:


Remember, MM, the folling is always correct:

Right, you fail to see my point.





Here is the point: The red paint is red, because the iron oxide grains......................? Can you fill in the dots? Perhaps the answer, as a result of Harrit and friends thinking hard and long about Griscom's recommendation, contains the answer?
Or perhaps: "The red layer is red because..........................."
Go, MM. quote the answer, it's in paper - or isn't it?


Alternatively:

Run, MM, runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!

Write coherently and keep your typos to a minimum and you might get more responses.

Also, your chronic failure to respond to rebuttals makes replying to your question floods a total waste of time.

MM

 

[Dog Town]

This is yet another confirmation of the impression I get from this forum, you so called "debunkers" keep repeating hogwash that you know has been debunked long ago.

 

[DGM]

Write coherently and keep your typos to a minimum and you might get more responses.

MM

Maybe you could be a little more tolerant considering English is not his native language.

(I know, you're only using this as an excuse)

 

[Oystein]

Write coherently and keep your typos to a minimum and you might get more responses.

LOL
How many typos were there in the post that you quoted and dodged?

Also, your chronic failure to respond to rebuttals makes replying to your question floods a total waste of time.

MM

How do you know? You never try!

Maybe you could be a little more tolerant considering English is not his native language.

(I know, you're only using this as an excuse)

Ohh no need to defend me here - one of my professors at the major American graduate school I went to once commended me for writing the best English of all his students - and he specifically included the American students. Most of my typos are really just typos and not due to any spelling problems I might have as a non-native speaker - I am just sloppy then.

And of course, you are right in your assessment of MM's pathetic foul. He reached another low point on his flight from honesty and decency

 

[beachnut]

Vanity Journal only Journal that publishes woo of Jones and Harrit

This is yet another confirmation of the impression I get from this forum, you so called "debunkers" keep repeating hogwash that you know has been debunked long ago. ...

Debunkers for Jones' folly? Thermite was not used on 911. The facts debunk Jones insane thermite in the ceiling tiles nonsense. Hogwash is the conclusion made by Jones and Harrit, the DSC do not match, and 911 truth has no clue what DSC is used for. Double failure.

... hogwash about Harrit et al, the paper, the reviewer, the editor, and the publisher. If he f

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

Outsiders? LOL, you think there is an audience for your thermite fantasy, and you think you are winning with a paper which makes silly conclusion of thermite. Hogwash, is what 911 truth has to back up Jones' failed paper on thermite.

... For the rest of you lot, it is about time to publish Millette´s paper if you still think that is going to happen at all, which seems unlikely at this point.

There are many studies of WTC. No thermite was found by rational researchers. Jones and Harrit are conspiracy nuts on 911 issues, and they only fool a few fringe paranoid conspiracy theories who lack knowledge in chemistry.

"For the rest of you lot,"

? Really? What did 60 minutes say about the failed fantasy conclusion of thermite in Jones' silly paper, published in a vanity journal?

Jones made up the conclusion before he started with dust collected by who?

...
1. Jones' Analysis was biased, and focused on finding a particular outcome from the get go. As a result, the analysis and subsequent paper ignore, or at best GLAZE OVER the issue of other possible sources of their Red/Grey Chips.

2. Jones' did not address, outside of a dismissive "it is contamination" the presence of Chromium and Zinc in at least one sample, and with this in mind, the possibility that the Sodium spikes in the Spectra, may have also been Zinc. There was no washing of the samples in order to eliminate contamination as a possiblity (or to rule it in).

3. All of the other LEGITIMATE analysis of dust from the WTC GZ had a considerable quantity of Paint in the dust samples. Yet there is no mention of paint particles within the samples that Jones had, and if they were found, how they were separated from the red/grey chips. I find the magnet method poor, because as we all know, paint from the WTC could have been found in the form of bilayered particles, due to peel off or rust/corrosion, and as a result, a magnet would work on them also.

4. I have a problem with the Journal that Jones selected to submit/publish his article with. There is mention of a personal connection between one of the lead scientists producing the paper, and the editorial board. There is a wealth of information indicating that the journal is a "Vanity" "Pay to publish" journal that solicited for members of the editorial boards for its various journals via viral email schemes to unqualified, unrelated (in field of knowledge) academics.

TAM

It is funny how the DSCs don't match; does all of 911 truth ignore evidence?

 

[jtl]

MM: Also, your chronic failure to respond to rebuttals makes replying to your question floods a total waste of time.

Oystein: How do you know? You never try!

MM is telling the truth, there is no point responding to you Oystein because any answer goes in one ear and out the other. You still present your "the MEK chip is Tnemec" nonsense no matter what, and you just tried to present an old theory as something new even though Rancourt offered it 2 years ago and Harrit debunked it 2 years ago(http://board.gulli.com/thread/153749.../#post13593325) The same thing with your "fill in the dots" comment about Griscom in post 1562, which you repeat in post 1572 despite the fact that Griscom himself has given you an answer(indirectly) and I reminded you in post 1564:

Griscom: I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!

And again the same thing with your repeated bs about Harrit et al not releasing important data:

I have a few questions for you:

How long ago did Harrit et al. produce their FTIR data?
How long ago did Harrit et al. announce that they WILL
publish their FTIR data?
Do you expect them to actually publish their FTIR data?
If yes, when? If not, why not?
How long ago did Steven Jones produce his XRD data?
Do you expect Steven Jones to publish his XRD data?
If yes, when? If not, why not?
How long ago did Jeff Farrer produce his TEM data?
Do you expect Jeff Farrer to publish his TEM data?
If yes, when? If not, why not?

This has been answered already and of course that has been ignored by you as always:

MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots?

You obviously cannot fill in the dots. If Millette manages to publish his paper, and especially if he manages to do it without getting more fraud charges, you can start to demand more data from Harrit et al, and you would get it. Until then you are in no position to make demands...so go run Oystein...ruuuuun...and go change the subject for the umpteenth time and run.

 

[DGM]

If Millette managed to publish his paper, and especially if he manages to do it without getting more fraud charges, you can start to demand more data from Harrit et al. Until then you are in no position to make demands.

I love this part. You guys will call it fraud regardless. That's how your group works.

How's the effort to get that withheld data going?

 

[beachnut]

Jones Fantasy Thermite Scam Failed in Vanity Journal

... If Millette manages to publish his paper, ....

Why did 60 Minutes skip Jones paper of woo?

Why is Millette's paper needed, Jones' paper fails all by itself.

Why can't you take Jones' paper to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and break the big inside job? Is it due to the fact it is a fantasy, the conclusions is nonsense?

When the Jones delusion first hit the Vanity Journal, I found the spectrum he publish was like aluminum on steel tubes, like heating stuff. Rust and Aluminum - two of the big elements on earth; Al, O, Fe. lol, they discovered dust.

And that is 911Truth.

The product of Jones red chips looks a lot like an ALUMINIZED steel tube damaged by heat.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/steeltubewithAl.jpg
Not thermite, not burnt thermite, just ALUMINIZED STEEL HEATER TUBES suffering damage from heat.

Plus his samples are not consistent for much save debris from the WTC that have rust and Al in them along with other elements you find in glass, steel, paint, clay and other items all found in the WTC without making up this paper about thermite.

We are lucking no one found cookie crumbs in the dust, we would have energy levels 11 times greater than TNT as Jones published a paper on butter extracted from cookie crumbs found at the WTC from 911, 11 times greater energy density than TNT. Now that would be a cool pay to publish paper. "Cookie Crumbs Confirm Inside Job with 11 Times the Energy of TNT".

 

[Oystein]

This has been answered already

Oh is this true? Well, I asked 10 questions, let's see, which ones are answered in the post you linked!

I asked:
1. How long ago did Harrit et al. produce their FTIR data?
A valid answer to this question would indicate a duration time, some sort of number, with a unit such as "years", ideally.
Here is the full content of the linked post:

"MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots? "​

No time duration hinted at. So question 1 has not already been answered by that post!

The same of course goes for the other questions that asked MM to indicate a time duration:

How long ago did Harrit et al. announce that they WILL publish their FTIR data?
2. How long ago did Harrit et al. produce their FTIR data?
5. How long ago did Steven Jones produce his XRD data?
8. How long ago did Jeff Farrer produce his TEM data?

Let's try the next three
3. Do you expect them to actually publish their FTIR data?
6. Do you expect Steven Jones to publish his XRD data?
9. Do you expect Jeff Farrer to publish his TEM data?
An answer to this can only be a "yes" or a "no". Since MM presumably knows his own expectations, he can't really answer "I don't know".
Does the linked post answer any of these "yes/no" questions?

"MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots? "​

Well, I see insinuation, but I see nothing equivalent to a "yes" or a "no".
However, MM has written in another post, other thread, that he very much is in favour of Harrit publishing studies that are completed. As we know Harrit's FTIR-experiments to be completed, that would imply a "yes" on MM's part at least for question 3.
Do you concur with this "yes", jtl?

Your post however does NOT answer the three questions!



And finally, I asked three times (about Harrit's FTIR, Jones's XRD, Farrer's TEM):
4. If yes, when? If not, why not?
7. If yes, when? If not, why not?
10. If yes, when? If not, why not?

An answer to this would either indicate a point in time - for example, a date on the calendar, or a specific reason as to why MM doesn't expect scientists to publish their experimental data on a problem of high interest.
Your quote says:

"MM can point to Harrit´s published paper that was reviewed by a very impressive scientist. You are still waiting for a WTC dust paper by a scientist with charges of fraud on his back for his past WTC dust papers. Can you fill in the dots? "​

I don't see any indication of a point in time in this post, nor do I see any reason why the FTIR, XRD or TEM data are not expected to be published.



I find, in summary, jtl, that you blatantly lied to me, when you claimed that this post that you linked to answers my ten (10) questions already. It actually answers none of them.

Please stop lying.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: I find, in summary, jtl, that you blatantly lied to me, when you claimed that this post that you linked to answers my ten (10) questions already. It actually answers none of them.

Oh you poor thing, English really is not your first language. The answer is relatively easy to understand:

If Millette manages to publish his paper, and especially if he manages to do it without getting more fraud charges, you can start to demand more data from Harrit et al, and you would get it. Until then you are in no position to make demands

This has been discussed here and on the thread dedicated to Millette´s study, and most people "get it".

But hey, keep changing the subject and run, run Oystein run..

 

[Spanx]

Oh you poor thing, English really is not your first language. The answer is relatively easy to understand:

This has been discussed here and on the thread dedicated to Millette´s study, and most people "get it".

Your looking more desperate than usual jtl

 

[beachnut]

Why Publish in a Vanity Journal?

Oh you poor thing, English really is not your first language. The answer is relatively easy to understand:

What? 911 truth can't find anything to support Jones fantasy thermite paper? This is all you have left, as Jones paper is useless because it is speculation, made up to support Jones thermite fantasy. Did you do the heat transfer for the thermite ceiling tiles? Got any math to support Jones claims?

This has been discussed here and on the thread dedicated to Millette´s study, and most people "get it".

Most people ignore Jones fantasy. Most people get it, Jones made up the conclusion to support his claim.


Why did Jones and his fellow inside-job thermite fantasy nuts fail to do more advanced techniques? If they did, why did they fail to publish results? They have only speculation they found thermite. The spectrum they presented does not show thermite, they made that part up.
Will they use XRD, FTIR, TEM, SIMS, and other techniques to obtain decisive chemical information? NO. These tests are too expensive for Jones failed group of paranoid conspiracy theorists who have failed to make prime time. They can't publish these tests because it will negate their thermite conclusion. How does a paper this poor fool those who can't do chemistry? Why has the paper failed to be published in a real journal?

We have nuts who are made up their conclusion first, did some stuff 911 truthers can't understand, Jones and company wave their hands, declare, thermite. Why is it limited to 911 truth cult members who fall for the fantasy?

 

[Oystein]

Oh you poor thing, English really is not your first language. The answer is relatively easy to understand:

This has been discussed here and on the thread dedicated to Millette´s study, and most people "get it".

I do get that you construct a conditio sine qua non that is premised on your desire to suppress scientific data, while coily failing to admit that Harrit et al. had already been holding back experimental data for almost three year before Millette even entered the picture - data, that they said in 2009 they already had and "will publish". It is not my demand that they publish the FTIR data - it was explicitly their own expectation!

MM as well is very interested in that data!

Two easy questions for you:

Does this FTIR data exist since at least April 2009?
Are Harrit et al. holding the FTIR data back since April 2009?

Twice yes or no, please.

 

[jtl]

Oystein: I do get that you construct a conditio sine qua non that is premised on your desire to suppress scientific data

Oh give it a rest, if you could "connect the dots" you would realize you are throwing stones from a house made of brittle glass. If I have a desire to suppress data then you must have a desire to pay a suspected fraud for data.
You want to go down that road buddy?

And of course you must have a desire to not only pay for a suspected fraud, but you also must have a desire to suppress data since your paid suspected fraudster refuses to replicate and publish some tests...eh buddy, you want to go down this road?

Does this FTIR data exist since at least April 2009?

For the record, I really do wonder if you would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite, or would you not simply ignore it like everything else with more of your "it´s not the same as chips a to d" handwaving?

 

[DGM]

For the record, I really do wonder if you would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite, or would you not simply ignore it like everything else with more of your "it´s not the same as chips a to d" handwaving?

We accept all their other raw data. Why do you think we wouldn't accept this?

 

[Oystein]

...you want to go down this road?

The road of unsupported allegations of criminality? No. I leave that to you.

For the record, I really do wonder if you would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite...?

Yes, absolutely.

Now please contact harrit and ask him to publish the data!

 

[DGM]

Yes, absolutely.

Now please contact harrit and ask him to publish the data!

Has anyone actually ever questioned their raw data? As I see it, it's the greatest proof we have they didn't find the magic thermite.

 

[beachnut]

Vanity Journal Paper Fails to Make 60 Minutes, 911 Inside Job Remains Delusion of Few

Oh give it a rest, if you could "connect the dots" you would realize you are throwing stones from a house made of brittle glass. If I have a desire to suppress data then you must have a desire to pay a suspected fraud for data.

House of brittle glass. A new saying? How will this support Jones failed paper? Jones is not a suspected fraud, Jones is a real fraud. Millette did not do fraud, and you can't present anything but hearsay to support your failed speculation. You will not research your claim, you will not get past posting hearsay ranting about fraud you can't prove, and can't explain. You quote-mine failed 911 truth claptrap, never supported with evidence.


Jones made up thermite when he decided for unknown reasons, to go nuts on 911. In one of Jones' first fantasy thermite papers, Jones presented this photo as evidence for thermite.

Cut after 911, Jones used it for his thermite scam. Easy to debunk, a big mistake, so he learned not to be specific in the future. Faking a paper so he could claim he found thermite in the dust.
Real fraud. Jones. Already proved, and then he does it again.

You want to go down that road buddy?

You have ignored the studies on dust, and settled for woo from Jones.

And of course you must have a desire to not only pay for a suspected fraud, but you also must have a desire to suppress data since your paid suspected fraudster refuses to replicate and publish some tests...eh buddy, you want to go down this road?

DSC in Jones paper shows his dust is not super-nano-thermite, it does not match. oops

For the record, I really do wonder if you would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite, or would you not simply ignore it like everything else with more of your "it´s not the same as chips a to d" handwaving?

If you seed Harrit's dust with thermite you will have good results. However, no steel from the WTC was damaged by thermite.

 

[Oystein]

Has anyone actually ever questioned their raw data? As I see it, it's the greatest proof we have they didn't find the magic thermite.

Both the dust samples and the data are often questioned, but I agree: Their data contains the proof that samples and data are genuine: Had Harrit et al. wanted to fake anything, they would have faked it such that the data would actually contain evidence for thermite. Since it doesn't, I remain confident that the data is good.

And for that reason, I really want to see their other data: FTIR, XRD, TEM.

I understand that XRD is pretty tricky with specimens this small, so there I wouldn't be much surprised about inconclusive data, and would not hold that against them. Still, science ethics demands that even inconclusive data be published.

TEM and FTIR on the other hand should more easily produce conclusive data. I suspect it has, and I suspect that Harrit et al. don't like the results.

 

[DGM]

Both the dust samples and the data are often questioned, but I agree: Their data contains the proof that samples and data are genuine: Had Harrit et al. wanted to fake anything, they would have faked it such that the data would actually contain evidence for thermite. Since it doesn't, I remain confident that the data is good.

And for that reason, I really want to see their other data: FTIR, XRD, TEM.

I understand that XRD is pretty tricky with specimens this small, so there I wouldn't be much surprised about inconclusive data, and would not hold that against them. Still, science ethics demands that even inconclusive data be published.

TEM and FTIR on the other hand should more easily produce conclusive data. I suspect it has, and I suspect that Harrit et al. don't like the results.

I agree with you. I've had the Harrit paper "peer reviewed" by two PHd level chemists (my ex-wife and her boss). They both said the same thing, "their results are not supported by their data".

Both work in an adhesives lab and believe they found an epoxy based paint on rusted steel. (both recognized the Kaolinite right off).

 

[pgimeno]

Has anyone actually ever questioned their raw data? As I see it, it's the greatest proof we have they didn't find the magic thermite.

It depends on what you mean by questioned.

Questioned as in they faked it, no.

Questioned as in they cherry-picked results, well, sometimes I think they did, although I have no proof. Even if so, the data proves there are different materials that they treated as the same thing, and in some cases the data is inconclusive and in the rest it refutes their conclusions.

Questioned as in the data proves nothing, yes. DSC has been repeatedly criticized for the lack of identification of the chips prior to the analysis, which leaves us knowing nothing about the chips they burned in the DSC, other than they were red/gray and attracted by a magnet, and judging by some post-DSC micrographs, some had kaolin and iron oxide crystals.

Questioned as in dubious methods leading to dubious data, yes, their resistivity test is a good example.

Questioned their conclusions from the data, definitely.

 

[DGM]

It depends on what you mean by questioned.

Questioned as in they faked it, no.

Questioned as in they cherry-picked results, well, sometimes I think they did, although I have no proof. Even if so, the data proves there are different materials that they treated as the same thing, and in some cases the data is inconclusive and in the rest it refutes their conclusions.

Questioned as in the data proves nothing, yes. DSC has been repeatedly criticized for the lack of identification of the chips prior to the analysis, which leaves us knowing nothing about the chips they burned in the DSC, other than they were red/gray and attracted by a magnet, and judging by some post-DSC micrographs, some had kaolin and iron oxide crystals.

Questioned as in dubious methods leading to dubious data, yes, their resistivity test is a good example.

Questioned their conclusions from the data, definitely.

I was talking about raw data. Most of your post is about how they interpreted it or their choice of what methods to use.

Raw data. I really have no problem with theirs (as I assume you don't either)

ETA: They produced no data on the resistivity test.

 

[Miragememories]

"For the record, I really do wonder if you [Oystein] would really accept Harrit´s FTIR if it is consistent with superthermite, or would you not simply ignore it like everything else with more of your "it´s not the same as chips a to d" handwaving?"

There is not a chance jtl.

As much as we are willing to legitimately discuss this thread's topic, Oystein is intent on gaming the topic for his own pleasure.

"In fact, I suspect that Fig. 17 is the result of improper handling. The pedestal on which the specimen is mounted in the SEM-XEDS machine tyically is made of aluminium, and I suspect that somehow Jones picked up Al-signal from the pedestal when he focused on the very edge of the chip."

"The colored dots outside of the chip in Fig. 15 prove that the SEM-EDS run produced XEDS-data for points outside of the chip."

From the link Oystein provided, Dr. Harrit totally eliminates the possibility of the sample holder being the source of the Al readings and also explains why scientists do not include every piece of data in their finished paper;

"When doing a scientific, instrumental investigation, there always is a great number of control experiments, which are implicit to every serious worker in the field. It is understood by the experienced reader, that these tests have been done, since you cannot put every basic control test image or report every bit of supporting data in a journal article. The articles would be so enormous that no one would bother reading them and no journal would possibly care to print them. There are some things that are implied.

Thus, numerous background studies were carried out which were not reported in the red/grey chips paper.

Among them, we performed a background study where the SEM beam hit the pedestal directly. We found that the pedestal was not pure aluminum (as you somehow(?) anticipate), but rather an Al-Mg alloy.
Therefore, if we were picking up aluminum signal from the pedestal then we also would have seen Mg. We did not.

As the controls also showed, the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon conductive tab used as substratum for the chip samples during measurement. That is, the Al/Mg scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in the article.

These circumstances are illustrated by Figs. 6 and 7 in the article. Fig. 6 shows the EDS spectra of the grey layers of four chips from each of the four dust samples. Thus, these data served as kind-of internal standard for the emissions obtained from the corresponding red layers (Fig. 7). In principle, the target areas for the electron beam on the two phases could be in a distance of microns only. It is immediately seen, that there is;

1) No aluminum in the grey layer (and only traces of carbon – no magnesium), and
2) Plenty aluminium in the red layer (and plenty of carbon – no magnesium).

Taken together, Figs. 6 and 7 prove unambiguously, that the aluminum signal is specific for the red layer. That is, there is NO background contribution!"

But does Oystein acknowledge how wrong his thinking is?

MM

 

[Oystein]

There is not a chance jtl.

As much as we are willing to legitimately discuss this thread's topic, Oystein is intent on gaming the topic for his own pleasure.

From the link Oystein provided, Dr. Harrit totally eliminates the possibility of the sample holder being the source of the Al readings and also explains why scientists do not include every piece of data in their finished paper;



But does Oystein acknowledge how wrong his thinking is?

MM

Remember, it was I who provided the Harrit link.
It was in the context of Peter May correcting me on my assumption that the sample holder surface is Al.

I provided the link to document that in fact I was mistaken on my assumption.

Now you hold against me that I use Harrit's data to document I was mistaken. You feel no shame, ever, or do you?


I was of course not mistaken in my observation that the EDS-map in Fig. 15 shows spots with some Al-content way outside of the Chip itself.

Harrit provides no explanation for this, and I currently have no explanation for this. Do you have an explanation for this?

 

[jtl]

Oystein: Now you(MM)hold against me that I use Harrit's data to document I was mistaken. You feel no shame, ever, or do you?

I was of course not mistaken in my observation that the EDS-map in Fig. 15 shows spots with some Al-content way outside of the Chip itself.

Harrit provides no explanation for this, and I currently have no explanation for this. Do you have an explanation for this?

You provided a link but instead of informing readers that you made a mistake you ranted about some supposed mistakes you think Harrit made(yet again with your never ending MEK handwave).

Your big mistake is your idiotic assumption that Harrit et al not only investigated some spots of contaminants besides the chip, but also based their whole paper on a spot of aluminum outside the chips. Rancourt made some really stupid assumptions but you took the cake, buddy.

No wonder Harrit et al have no patience for JREF type forums, and wait for published response.

 

[DGM]

, but also based their whole paper on a spot of aluminum outside the chips.

Where did he do this? Do you know what the term "working hypothesis" means? From your post you don't seem to know.


Again you're caught in a lie.

 

[beachnut]

Harrit et al are not skeptics, they are Conspiracy Theorist who fool a fringe few

... No wonder Harrit et al have no patience for JREF type forums, and wait for published response.

His claims are not rational, not based on critical thinking, and his claims are anti-education. Harrit et al are the opposite of JREF, they are paranoid conspiracy theorists.

No wonder Harrit et al have no patience for JREF, the E stands for Education. Harrit stands for paranoid conspiracy theories, made up nonsense dumbed down for 911 truth believers. Like Heavens Gate member, the 911 truth cult believe blindly thermite was used on 911. Yet, no evidence of thermite damage was found on WTC steel. And the steel was looked at, studied, and unique samples were found, and studied.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
Jones first big lie, failed. Did you see that report Jones did years ago? He had to dumb it down for the 911 truthers, and not make mistakes which are easy to expose, so they used science to fool you. You should have taken chemistry.

Oops, WTC steel had no damage from thermite, no thermite products found.

Where is the thermite on 911?
Why is the DSC for the dust not like thermite?


Harrit et al can't come to JREF, they are not skeptics, they are nuts on 911. How did 100 tons of thermite get into the WTC and not damage any steel, and failed to leave tons of evidence?

 

[Miragememories]

...
Harrit Jones et al state the following.

For general surface analysis in the SEM, dust samples
were mounted to carbon conductive tabs.
…

"Harrit has provided some more detail on their sample holders in a reply to Dennis Rancourt's post-publication peer-review:

http://board.gulli.com/thread/1537495-die-sich-abzeichnende-neue-weltordnung/307/#post13593325

(He commits the error again to mix up tests and results on chips a-d with tests and results on the MEK-chip. I am 99% certain those two sets of experiments were done at widely different times, and probably by different persons; my reason to assume this is the large difference in data quality and systematic approach. So whatever measures of quality control were done on chips a-d - by Jeff Farrer, I think - cannot be applied directly to the MEK-chip - Jones, I suspect, or perhaps Farnsworth)."

"Remember, it was I who provided the Harrit link.
It was in the context of Peter May correcting me on my assumption that the sample holder surface is Al.

I provided the link to document that in fact I was mistaken on my assumption.

Now you hold against me that I use Harrit's data to document I was mistaken. You feel no shame, ever, or do you?"

Strange, I see no acknowledgement of your "mistaken assumption" in that earlier post?

But, I do see you ignoring your erroneous oft repeated assumption about the aluminum sample holder while using that link to pursue a different tack.

MM