Chain of Custody

Go to post 1677 in the Origin of Chips thread for the latest conversation with Jim Millette, including Chain of Custody.
 
SLT and others, do you think maybe this iron micro-thread can go back to the red-gray chips origin thread? Oystein would that be OK? Seems like we're straddling two threads as we talk about this upcoming dust study.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Again - 220 floors of concrete and STEEL and you're implying that finding iron in the dust is strange?



No im implying that finding formerly molten iron is strange.
Click to expand...


please show us why it would be strange. Collect dust sample from say 10 other large fire sites and from say 10 actual CD and say from 100 hundred other city lots from around the country and then test them for "formerly molten" (as if there was any other kind:rolleyes:) iron and then report back to us with your findings............we'll wait
 
sheeplesnshills said:
please show us why it would be strange. Collect dust sample from say 10 other large fire sites and from say 10 actual CD and say from 100 hundred other city lots from around the country and then test them for "formerly molten" (as if there was any other kind:rolleyes:) iron and then report back to us with your findings............we'll wait
Click to expand...

Troll much?

MM
 
you would think that post was trolling.....

Me? I see nothing unreasonable. Of course, to a truther, backing up a statement with facts IS unreasonable.
 
chrismohr said:
SLT and others, do you think maybe this iron micro-thread can go back to the red-gray chips origin thread? Oystein would that be OK? Seems like we're straddling two threads as we talk about this upcoming dust study.
Click to expand...

Ohhh no! Microspheres has a very VERY limited excuse for being discussed in "Origin"! The RJ Lee spheres don't belong there, and most of Harrits spheres don't belong there, i.e. those that come from burning thermite and those they found in the dust.

At most spheres found in the residue of burned chips can be discussed in "Origin".

I am happy for every dust catcher thread like this one that keeps distractions out of my (our) thread.
The Chain of Custody of Jim's samples is not an issue in need of discussion at this time. I have quoted what we know from it from the Lioy paper; you have posted what you know from Jim. The rest will be in his report when he is done.


Edited by Gaspode: 
Removed breach of rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miragememories said:
Troll much?

MM
Click to expand...

In what way is that trolling???? Twoofer makes baseless assertion and I suggest a way he can provide data to back his assertion up.
Do you have evidence that iron microspheres are anything but utterly routine at CDs or/or after big building fires. If so please lets us know.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Ivan said:

"I don't know what two kinds of chips is Kevin Ryan talking about, since it is still his "top truther secret":cool: I just guess that his red "paint chips" are chips of Tnemec paint (or some other red primer) and alleged "thermitic chips" are chips identical with Bentham chips (a) to (d), aka Laclede paint chips. For me, Kevin Ryan simply keeps (at least) two kinds of paint chips. It's up to him to show me(us), that I am (we are) wrong:cool":[/QUOTE]

Kevin Ryan has his own samples of WTC paint. They are not a secret by any means I can asure all of you that. I have recived four pictures not from him, but from another associate. Two of what the red gray chips look like (before and after ignition) and two of what the WTC paint samples look like under microscopy. They do not look anything alike.

To make reference that one is withholding evidence by stating Kevins paint samples are his "top truther secret" is a strong accusation and I beleive an appoligy to him is in order. The only ones whom are withholding evidence is the NIST.

So all your posts about not knowing the chemical composition for the paint samples Ryan has, or that were in the Bentham paper have been answered.

The composition of WTC paint, both the Tnemec and Laclede varieties, is public knowledge and was reported in the NIST reports. Kevin Ryans samples are WTC paint.



See attached.
Click to expand...

SLT: since I'm not so strict as my German colleague and neighbour Oystein, I'm still willing to discuss with you, since this your post is basically OT (dealing with red chips).

- Concerning pictures you pasted: Even you should feel that micrographs without scales, captions, infos on method used etc. have no bigger scientific value than pictures of your dog and house painted by your older sister.

- Since red chips in WTC dust are my hobby, I know very well that those micrographs were published in some truther's article here . Again, no scales were given, therefore no comparison is possible. According to article, right pictures (in your post) show some paint from WTC (probably Tnemec), left pictures show some infamous red chips from Bentham paper. That's all. Those pictures did not prove anything in any way.

You wrote: "The composition of WTC paint, both the Tnemec and Laclede varieties, is public knowledge and was reported in the NIST reports. "
Yes, it is basically a public knowledge, but it was me, not any truther, who found the composition of the second massively used red primer paint ("Laclede brand") in corresponding NIST report and make this info really public (at least here in JREF). Truthers (including Bentham team) still admit the existence of only one red primer paint; and in the Bentham paper, authors basically considered only one source of red chips (nanothermite) since they regarded all found chips as the same (pyrotechnic) material. (Well, they initially "suspected" that some chips could be even paint, but they "excluded" this possibility using some irrelevant and badly chosen experiments.) Later on, some of them reluctantly admitted that perhaps some red chips could be one WTC primer paint. But, they still refuse to admit that more (at least two) red paints could be sources of red chips in the dust.
 
Last edited:
Truthers (including Bentham team) still admit the existence of only one red primer paint; and in the Bentham paper, authors basically considered only one source of red chips (nanothermite) since they regarded all found chips as the same (pyrotechnic) material. (Well, they initially "suspected" that some chips could be even paint, but they "excluded" this possibility using some irrelevant and badly chosen experiments.)

What experiments do you consider irrelevant? Surly not the one where they put them in paint thinner (or as Niels says nail polish remover)? If I remember correctly, the paint chip dissolved and the red/gray chip did not.

Later on, some of them reluctantly admitted that perhaps some red chips could be one WTC primer paint. But, they still refuse to admit that more (at least two) red paints could be sources of red chips in the dust.[/QUOTE]

Can you show me some documentation that the Bentham team refuses to admit that two red primer paints were used in the WTC?
Can you also give me the citation to where it says that two red paints were used in the WTC? It's not that I don't believe you, I just can't seem to find it with my search.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
In what way is that trolling???? Twoofer makes baseless assertion and I suggest a way he can provide data to back his assertion up.
Do you have evidence that iron microspheres are anything but utterly routine at CDs or/or after big building fires. If so please lets us know.
Click to expand...

Jones took samples from known CDs. There were no red/gray chips or iron rich formerly molten microspheres found.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Yes....but there not in a shape of a tear drop. They were pulled from extreme pressure to that shape. Cmon dude. Please.
Click to expand...

Why do you think no one else thinks there is any problem with these spheres? Why is it the official reports and RJ Lee that make it possible for Jones and co to even think they exist in the first place said it is was expected? If they are in on a conspiracy because no one could be that ignorant thats trained, then why would they admit it in the first place for other professionals to read and go "WTF, no they are not expected!!!". Why do you guys always require these conspirators always behave so strangely?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Why do you think no one else thinks there is any problem with these spheres? Why is it the official reports and the RJ Lee that make it possible for Jones and co to even think they exist in the first place said it is was expected?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? RJ Lee is part of the super secret NWO global government. Hello. If you don't know, you must have been sleeping for the last 10 years.

That's right isn't it superlogicalthinker. The whole 9/11 attack ws masterminded in the super secret HQ of the NWO.

But this won't last much longer, will it. 9/11 Truth is the issue that's sweeping the world. It's on the lips of everyone. It's the issue that's reshaping the Presidential race in the USA. It's the question that every candidate has to deal with. It's only a matter of time until the truth spills out on the streets and the guilty have to answer for their sins.

superlogicalthinker, right. I mean really...I'm right, aren't I?
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Truthers (including Bentham team) still admit the existence of only one red primer paint; and in the Bentham paper, authors basically considered only one source of red chips (nanothermite) since they regarded all found chips as the same (pyrotechnic) material. (Well, they initially "suspected" that some chips could be even paint, but they "excluded" this possibility using some irrelevant and badly chosen experiments.)

What experiments do you consider irrelevant? Surly not the one where they put them in paint thinner (or as Niels says nail polish remover)? If I remember correctly, the paint chip dissolved and the red/gray chip did not.

Later on, some of them reluctantly admitted that perhaps some red chips could be one WTC primer paint. But, they still refuse to admit that more (at least two) red paints could be sources of red chips in the dust.

Can you show me some documentation that the Bentham team refuses to admit that two red primer paints were used in the WTC?"
Can you also give me the citation to where it says that two red paints were used in the WTC? It's not that I don't believe you, I just can't seem to find it with my search.
Click to expand...

SLT, you are funny:rolleyes:
Shortly: as for paint solubility tests: when you go to some hobby market, do you expect that they will have in stock only one kind of paint? Really??? Still, this is actually what was expected by Bentham team: that only one kind of paint exists in this world, so it is good enough to compare solubility of their (evil nanothermite) chips with the solubility of some accidentally chosen paint;):):rolleyes:

No, there was no explicit note in the Bentham paper which refuses to admit that two red primers were used in WTC. Still, authors simply should very seriously consider those paints as clear candidates for origin of their red chips. No such serious attempt was made.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
Really? are you saying that steel is NOT an alloy of iron with added carbon to make it flex?
Click to expand...
Yes. Carbon is not added to iron to make it flex period. You are not super. You are not logical and you certainly don't think. Infact you are pig ignorant, doubly so when it comes to steel.

Carbon is added to harden Iron and thereby strengthening it through various mechanisms which reduces ductility and flexibility - the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Sorry had to delurk there - the stupid just burns too much.
 
Sunstealer said:
Yes. Carbon is not added to iron to make it flex period. You are not super. You are not logical and you certainly don't think. Infact you are pig ignorant, doubly so when it comes to steel.

Carbon is added to harden Iron and thereby strengthening it through various mechanisms which reduces ductility and flexibility - the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Sorry had to delurk there - the stupid just burns too much.
Click to expand...

WOW! So you are saying that steel in NOT an alloy of iron with added carbon for flexibilty? Sure about that?

Do you know when they swiched to steel from iron in constuction? Do you know why?

if you are actually saying that steel does not have carbon added to it for flexibilty show me a citiation that says that.

;):DHappy hunting bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom