Chain of Custody

[tsig]

MM: Propagandist or journalist? Depends on whose beliefs I'm stepping on I guess. It doesn't really matter to me that NIST didn't study thermites and explosives. They found no evidence to point them in that direction. You can ponder this all you want. Me, when the bentham paper came out and I had a series of personal conversations with Kevin Ryan about the WTC dust, along with hundreds of JREF posts etc, I got confused then curious. I don't care much that NIST didn't do the study. I don't care much that Kevin Ryan didn't encourage further independent studies of his work. I just want to know what an independent study of the WTC dust will turn up, and I'm willing to organize a whole study just to do what no one else is bothering to do. Debunkers may say I'm wasting time; 9/11 Truth activists may say I'm hiring a deceptive person and that I'm dishonest. I don't care. But I'm real curious and willing to do something positive about it. I think that's pretty good journalism actually.

Looks to me like you're doing more work and research by yourself than all of the 1600+ members of the Engineers For Truth, Richard gage, Jones, et. al.

 

[ozeco41]

...I just want to know what an independent study of the WTC dust will turn up, and I'm willing to organize a whole study just to do what no one else is bothering to do. ....... But I'm real curious and willing to do something positive about it. I think that's pretty good journalism actually.

A perfectly legitimate reason and I fully support you in your efforts.

My personal preference, in the context of debate with truthers, is that I would not go down that track of logic. We can get at CD claims by multiple other paths and it is probably true that few "truthers" will pay any attention. That said you seem to have interested some truth advocates which is a step forward for them. But, trying not to pee on the parade, if they are genuinely sceptical why have they not examined all the non-thermate reliant evidence?? Are they that challenged in logical thinking??

... Debunkers may say I'm wasting time; 9/11 Truth activists may say I'm hiring a deceptive person and that I'm dishonest. I don't care....

you are not wasting time pursuing your interest area. The debunker claim that you are "wasting time" is from their perspective, not yours. And you are correctly following your own perspective. The statement by any debunker that "you are wasting time" is only valid if qualified as to from whose perspective the statement is made. And some of us debunkers can get a bit loose or lazy in taking logical shortcuts.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It was the unusual chemistry of the WTC dust which I was specifically referring to.

Please show that the dust has "unusual" chemistry. It seems to contain exactly what one would think it would given the circumstances. lots of drywall and concrete dust plus traces of just about everything one would find in a burning office tower.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Looks to me like you're doing more work and research by yourself than all of the 1600+ members of the Engineers For Truth, Richard gage, Jones, et. al.

Despite them having 100's of thousands of dollars to spend on hookers for Gage "research"...........

 

[Miragememories]

Despite them having 100's of thousands of dollars to spend on hookers for Gage "research"...........

It is posts like the one above that reveal how pointless it is providing you with thoughtful replies.

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It is posts like the one above that reveal how pointless it is providing you with thoughtful replies.

MM

You have never ever provided a thoughtful reply to anyone. My comments are at least plausible.

 

[NoahFence]

It is posts like the one above that reveal how pointless it is providing you with thoughtful replies.

MM

Perhaps if they did something useful like at least say when they intend on sending their petition to Congress, posts like that wouldn't be needed.

As it currently sits, the truth movement and all associated with it deserve to be mocked and hated for the liars they are.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

plague, do you see any reason to doubt the origin of the dust samples? I don't.

I think the fact that they found chips in all four samples that are damned nearly identical in macro and micro (and nano) appearence, and XEDS spectra, and the fact that we could identify them as LaClede steel primer, is for me excellent corroboration that all four samples are indeed dust that settled near GZ after the WTC collapses.

If you are referring to this graph http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7723954&postcount=841 I dont see any carbon on the Leclade paint graph. Are we just supposed to imagine the C is there on the graph as it is for the chips? I see a large spike but nothing there to signify what that spkie is.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Adding on, upon a bit closer review I found this:



pg. 3, first paragraph

The first one does have a video testimony. Seem pretty locked down.

This is related to the second sample:



I see no documentation.

Affidavit for the 3rd that stated:


Bolding mine, this seems a little odd that he sends the affidavit in with collapsed already in quotes?

And then lastly:



So it appears I was wrong. They do have 1 video testimony, 1 affidavit, and then they flew to take some from the bag in the last. Sorry, I tried not to make it too long.

Just a thought, would it be possible to maybe contact this last witness. It said she sent more off to others in the next paragraph, maybe instead of asking Jones we could go straight to the source?

Jenette McKinnley has since past away from 911 disease. RIP

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Jones without doubt is sure of the samples' origin, but not his findings.

If you contact the individuals with the dust, you still don't have a clear chain of custody, because these individuals are laypersons; they did not meticulously document what they were doing when they collected the dust, didn't follow a rigid protocol to ensure they are uncontaminated, didn't assess the dust's state scientifically in situ, etc. You basically only have their word on their (potentially faulty) recollections. That's as good as you can get, and that's as good as Jones got. No sworn affidavit nor videotape can improve on that. You believe them or you don't.


Unless you suspect that Jones somehow manipulated either the individuals or the samples. But that's an allegation I would then like you to support with evidence.

I'll say it again: The fact that a fair interpretation of Jones's, Harrit's, Farrer's own data shows there was paint (Tnemec as well as LaClede), not thermite, is the best corroboration for the originality of the dust samples.



The problem with the Harrit paper is neither the chain of custody of the samples nor the analysis data they drew from them, but their ridiculously faulty conclusions.

"they did not meticulously document what they were doing when they collected the dust, didn't follow a rigid protocol to ensure they are uncontaminated, didn't assess the dust's state scientifically"

This is why Dr. farrer breaks off a fresh surface. So any contamination is then ruled out as only the inside of the chip is being analyzed.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

When researching for my debate with Richard Gage, I asked NIST about the Bentham paper and why they didn't test for thermites etc. In summary, they said 1) the materials found in the dust tests by Harrit et al also appear in the buildings anyway and 2) even if they found thermitic materials, their dust samples don't have a chain of custody. I phoned for more clarification and Michael Newman at NIST told me, "we follow the evidence" and that there was no evidence of thermitics in the dust. I also talked to Kevin Ryan and others close to the Bentham study and I believe they did everything humanly possible to preserve a respectable chain of custody. Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

Whats your source for that "solid chain of custody" Chris? You've said EPA in past posts. That's not good enough for the public because of what they said about the air at GZ days after the demolitions.

Where did he get his samples? Who originally took them? What day? How did they preserve them?

 

[NoahFence]

Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

Whats your source for that "solid chain of custody" Chris? You've said EPA in past posts. That's not good enough for the public because of what they said about the air at GZ days after the demolitions.

Where did he get his samples? Who originally took them? What day? How did they preserve them?

FFS wait for the damn report.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

FFS wait for the damn report.

I don't see why there has to be a waiting period. Millette knows where he got them. Why can't he simpley tell Chris, or post something here about where he aquirred these samples?

 

[Oystein]

If you are referring to this graph http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7723954&postcount=841 I dont see any carbon on the Leclade paint graph. Are we just supposed to imagine the C is there on the graph as it is for the chips? I see a large spike but nothing there to signify what that spkie is.

SLT, that was so far (it's 6:17pm where I am) the biggest laugh of my day!
Take a close look at the graphs again:

Do you see where the C-peak is in the four spectra of Fig 7 of the Bentham paper? Note where it is on the x-Axis!
Now go to the other two, simulated LaClede, graphs. Go to the same spot on the x-axis.

Do you, by any chance, see any peaks there that are not labeled?


I see one. It is so freaking high, it shoots throught the roof.
It's label would be outside of the y-axis scale.
It would be ... can you guess what that highest peak of them all is?

Do you understand why there must be C in that graph? Do you understand why that very high, through-the-ceiling peak at ca. 0.3keV can only be C?



Man, you really should stop talking about things that you know absolutely nothing of!

 

[Oystein]

"they did not meticulously document what they were doing when they collected the dust, didn't follow a rigid protocol to ensure they are uncontaminated, didn't assess the dust's state scientifically"

This is why Dr. farrer breaks off a fresh surface. So any contamination is then ruled out as only the inside of the chip is being analyzed.

A new stupidity in every new post. You are accumulationg quite a batting average here - batting for stupidity of course.

The red-gray chips themselves in their splendid entirety could be the contamination!


(I am not saying they are; in fact, I have repeatedly, and even in the post that you quoted, expressed my conviction that the dust samples are genuine and that the chips are from the WTC collapse events. The same trust ought to be extended do Jim's samples, as long as he documents the chain of custody, and it gives us no good reason to doubt the origin. We shall make that assessment once Jim has given us that documentation, and not one day earlier)

 

[tsig]

Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

Whats your source for that "solid chain of custody" Chris? You've said EPA in past posts. That's not good enough for the public because of what they said about the air at GZ days after the demolitions.

Where did he get his samples? Who originally took them? What day? How did they preserve them?

I don't see why there has to be a waiting period. Millette knows where he got them. Why can't he simpley tell Chris, or post something here about where he aquirred these samples?

Why bother you've already got the goalposts on the move.

 

[Oystein]

Jim Millette has a solid chain of custody of WTC dust from several sources and has direct access to all of them in his lab because of past studies he's been hired to partake in.

Whats your source for that "solid chain of custody" Chris? You've said EPA in past posts. That's not good enough for the public because of what they said about the air at GZ days after the demolitions.

Where did he get his samples? Who originally took them? What day? How did they preserve them?

SLT, you are participating in the other thread ("Origin of the paint..."), but obviously you are not reading for comprehension.
I answered that question two days ago here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7939693&postcount=1520
The Lioy-paper was published at EHP (a journal) in july 2002 and describes in great detail how, when, where and according to which protocols the samples were collected and stored until their analysis was done.
Jim will have to describe in his upcoming paper how the dust subsamples that he used were handled and stored since. Jim says he still has a good chain of custody.
I suggest we take him at his word, just as I suggest we take Jones, Ryan and Basile at their words - unless we find reason to distrust them.

Do you see any reason to distrust Jim Milette, SLT? If so, write them down!
If not, be patient.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't see why there has to be a waiting period. Millette knows where he got them. Why can't he simpley tell Chris, or post something here about where he aquirred these samples?

The report will include it. YOU don't want to wait. That doesn't mean anything.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Excellent call, Chris.

Not a s excellent as this call by kevin ryan:

"explain why his EPA paper was not deceptive, and now this demand that we have him explain in detail his chain of custody"

 

[twinstead]

Not a s excellent as this call by kevin ryan:

"explain why his EPA paper was not deceptive, and now this demand that we have him explain in detail his chain of custody"

So why can't he just explain why it WAS deceptive? Isn't that normally how claims work? Unless you think proving negatives is standard procedure of course.