Chain of Custody

[plague311]

SLT, Harrit et al. didn't release any information as far as chain of custody previous to their findings. On the same grounds that you say, "What would be their motivation for lying?" you have to apply the same rationale to Dr. Millette. Why would he spend hours of his own time, money, and resources on a sample that he knows wouldn't have a solid chain of custody?

I know it's twoofer style, but you can't apply something to people on your "side" while at the same time using it against the debunker side. It's just not logical.

If you read earlier in the thread I, and I am sure others, did a little research related to the process of releasing information like what you are asking for previous to the study release and found that it is by no means a standard. Lots of work from Mr. Mohr has gone in to making this happen. Repeatedly asking the Dr. for more and more information is going to eventually retard the progress of the study, and at this time it isn't needed. Let him do his job, we know YOU aren't going to believe it anyway. So feeding your desires is stupid at this point.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Chris, which one is your final answer?????

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.

You said this first: I've always wished NIST would have done such a study

Then a couple of post later when someone asked a question you refute yourself saying: I don't care much that NIST didn't do the study

NIST should have done a study period. With all the reports of explosions by the media and first responeers that day, they should have tested for the reason to rule them out if no other.

It is suspisious that they didn't test so explosives could be ruled out. If they are so sure then why not test to confirm?

 

[Justin39640]

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

MM

Yet you have to comment? Next time, just ignore people you don't think deserve your attention. Otherwise you just seem snippy and bothered.

I thought it was funny, just for the record.

 

[Oystein]

MM and SLT seem very scared of the upcoming study by Jim Milette, sponsored by JREF, orgsanized by Chris Mohr.
This madness is their final fanfare.

 

[twinstead]

I suspect that if ones prepared to declare anything that is contrary to ones position fake or invalid, one wouldn't be afraid of anything at all...

 

[DGM]

MM and SLT seem very scared of the upcoming study by Jim Milette, sponsored by JREF, orgsanized by Chris Mohr.
This madness is their final fanfare.

What's telling is they've already worked up their excuses to dismiss it. Says a lot about what the really think about an independent investigation. My guess is they support it if they can run it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Twoofers are now "the public"? I doubt the public will care much either way, most will accept the EPA documentation and a few rightwing nuts and twoofers will bleat about it no matter how accurate and detailed it is and the world will keep turning........

 

[uke2se]

Someone is actually doing an independent investigation of the WTC dust? That's great news, eh twoofers?

No?

Well, I'm sure you can find a way to rationalize to yourselves why you won't believe the results. Just expect to get called on that "we demand a new investigation" crap you've been spewing.

 

[triforcharity]

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"

Ever heard the phrase "the person making the claim has the burden of proof" and " you can't prove a negative "?

Kevin Ryan made the claim, so it is up to him to prove it is deceptive.

 

[chrismohr]

You said this first: I've always wished NIST would have done such a study

Then a couple of post later when someone asked a question you refute yourself saying: I don't care much that NIST didn't do the study

NIST should have done a study period. With all the reports of explosions by the media and first responeers that day, they should have tested for the reason to rule them out if no other.

It is suspisious that they didn't test so explosives could be ruled out. If they are so sure then why not test to confirm?

Sorry that was a contradiction.
I always had this wish that NIST did more studies on several things: explosives in the dust, and even more, the actual collapse after the point of inevitability. I was on my own to explain the various phenomena after the point of inevitability of collapse in my YouTube videos and in my debate with Gage.
How did I cope with NIST not giving me what I would have liked to have had for my debate? I talked with other scientists, dozens of them in person, many others here on JREF. I got the explanations I needed from them, to augment what I got from NIST.
How am I coping with the fact that I am not a chemist and I can never be fully satisfied with the objections to the Bentham paper? NIST's answers didn't satisfy me (and they didn't do the tests), and even the long patient explanations of Sunstealer, Mackey, Oystein, Ivan and others SEEM to make sense but they're outside my knowledge base. Remember, Kevin Ryan has personally answered many of their objections in emails to me when I sent him what they said. The result was real confusion.
So there's one thing I know: tests need independent verification. I know, says this English/journalism major: I'll organize a series of tests myself and ask other people to help pay for it!!!
So the "I don't care much that NIST didn't do the tests" statement is where I've come to. Yes, I wished they would have done my work for me, but they didn't. I don't wish any more, I just move ahead and get good info on my own.
Be careful what you wish for; you may find that the world won't hand it to you on a silver platter and you may actually have to do the work yourself to get what you want instead of whining when someone doesn't give it to you!

 

[plague311]

samples of particles that initially settled in downtown NYC were taken from three undisturbed protected locations to the east of the WTC site. Two samples were taken on day 5 (16 September 2001) and the third sample was taken on day 6 (17 September 2001)
...
The first sample was collected from protected external ledges around the entrance of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is one block east of the WTC building complex. The initial direction of the plume was from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other two samples were collected at locations to the east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples were collected from 10–15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles were in locations protected from rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001. One automobile was located on Cherry Street, and the other was on Market Street, one and two city blocks, respectively, west of the East River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in their respective locations since 11 September, but it is possible that each could have been moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the east side of NYC (FDR Drive).
... The samples were collected using the protocols established for surface soil collection in our studies of the dispersal of chromium-laden hazardous waste in Jersey City, New Jersey (2), and the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (3). After collection, all samples were
stored in a 4°C room prior to sending the subfractions to individual laboratories for analysis. We maintained chain of custody throughout sample transferal and analyses.

This was posted by Oystein in another thread. I'll have to wait for confirmation from him, but the impression I got is the above quote refers to the test that Dr. Millette was involved in previously. To my understanding, which could be wrong, this would be where the dust samples came from. As far as where they are stored, I am not sure how labs store materials like this, maybe someone that works in a lab would be able to clarify.

 

[NoahFence]

Getting your ducks in a row, eh?

The sounds you and MM and Red are making at the impending demise of therm*te are nothing short of hilarious.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

MM and SLT seem very scared of the upcoming study by Jim Milette, sponsored by JREF, orgsanized by Chris Mohr.
This madness is their final fanfare.

Scared is a word that least describes my feelings toward this new testing. More like excited. I'm excited to see that there is still active thermitic material in the powder of what was once the concrete of the WTC.

However, I was thinking last night while watching the hockey game.....if Millete finds thermitic material, whats to say he will be honest about it?

Taking someone at their word when it comes to this subject should NEVER be the way things are conducted. Things should always be sourced. There needs to be SOLID PROOF to lay this subject to rest.

THERE HAS TO BE A 9/11 TRUTH SYMPATHETIC SCIENTIST INVOLVED IN THESE STUDIES.

If someone is not present to oversee the testing (from both sides) how do we know for sure that the tests were not "deceptive".

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Getting your ducks in a row, eh?

The sounds you and MM and Red are making at the impending demise of therm*te are nothing short of hilarious.

No, seriously....what is the harm to have a scientist from BOTH sides of the topic involved in doing the tests TOGETHER???? Both in the same room, preforming the same tests, with the same powder which came from the same place.

Hey, maybe Niels can go himself and bring that massive 5 gallon (I think it was gallons) container full of WTC powder and we can compare it as well.

 

[NoahFence]

Taking someone at their word when it comes to this subject should NEVER be the way things are conducted. Things should always be sourced. There needs to be SOLID PROOF to lay this subject to rest.

You don't actually READ any posts, do you?

 

[plague311]

Scared is a word that least describes my feelings toward this new testing. More like excited. I'm excited to see that there is still active thermitic material in the powder of what was once the concrete of the WTC.

However, I was thinking last night while watching the hockey game.....if Millete finds thermitic material, whats to say he will be honest about it?

Taking someone at their word when it comes to this subject should NEVER be the way things are conducted. Things should always be sourced. There needs to be SOLID PROOF to lay this subject to rest.

THERE HAS TO BE A 9/11 TRUTH SYMPATHETIC SCIENTIST INVOLVED IN THESE STUDIES.

If someone is not present to oversee the testing (from both sides) how do we know for sure that the tests were not "deceptive".

Ok, I am going to do my best at this.

A)No. A few reasons I can think of, possible trade secrets between labs, and I am sure there are security issues with bringing in outside people to someone's lab. That is A LOT to ask of someone already doing this at a fraction of the actual cost. To basically say, "may we have someone look over your shoulder as well?"

Not to mention the fact that 9/11 truth sympathetic scientists have shunned this test.

B)Dr. Millette is NOT, I repeat, NOT a "debunker". He has stated time and again that he has no bias in the outcome of this test. He is doing it for the sake of furthering his own knowledge, and answering his curiousness.

C)There are scientists that will be analyzing his work, it is a process known as peer-review. The people with knowledge, experience, and ability to investigate this type of experiment.

My 2 cents

 

[BasqueArch]

I propose that we organize a 9/11 Truth scientist ( Basille, Ryan, Roberts...ect) to over see Millettes testing.

Kevin Ryan has already brought up the word "deceptive" in regards to the tests.

He's talking about the Jones/Harrit tests right? Where their political conclusions don't follow from their faulty protocol test results.

How do we know that if thermitic material is found that Millette actually comes out and says so?

Is it possible to have a 9/11 scientist involved in this study?

That would eliminate room for skepticism involving the documenting of the tests while they were being completed.

Plus, to have another professional involved is better in my opinion, you never know what one person might miss and the other pick up behind him.

You have an opportunity to satisfy your concerns.
This is what you need to do then:

Plan A:
1. First confirm who from the 9/11 truther camp will agree to perform this task.
2. Have the Jones/Harrit dust provided to Millette for testing.
3. Have someone pay Millette for any additional services. In advance.
4. Receive Millette's agreement for this change to the scope of work.

Plan B:
Submit the Jones/Harrit dust for analysis using the same protocol as Millette's to an independent reputable experienced laboratory.

Mohr has already done his share. You now need to pitch in and take the message to Garcia.
Will you do so?

 

[DGM]

I propose that we organize a 9/11 Truth scientist ( Basille, Ryan, Roberts...ect) to over see Millettes testing.

Kevin Ryan has already brought up the word "deceptive" in regards to the tests.

How do we know that if thermitic material is found that Millette actually comes out and says so?

Is it possible to have a 9/11 scientist involved in this study?

That would eliminate room for skepticism involving the documenting of the tests while they were being completed.

Plus, to have another professional involved is better in my opinion, you never know what one person might miss and the other pick up behind him.

Who did the "truth scientists" involve in their "study"? Any non-truthers? Has it ever dawned on you that maybe if they did, none of this would be necessary? Your "Critical thinking" lacks the option that they could actually be the deceitful ones and this study needs to be independent of them.

I thought you were "super".

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Ok, I am going to do my best at this.

A)No. A few reasons I can think of, possible trade secrets between labs, and I am sure there are security issues with bringing in outside people to someone's lab. That is A LOT to ask of someone already doing this at a fraction of the actual cost. To basically say, "may we have someone look over your shoulder as well?"

Not to mention the fact that 9/11 truth sympathetic scientists have shunned this test.

B)Dr. Millette is NOT, I repeat, NOT a "debunker". He has stated time and again that he has no bias in the outcome of this test. He is doing it for the sake of furthering his own knowledge, and answering his curiousness.

C)There are scientists that will be analyzing his work, it is a process known as peer-review. The people with knowledge, experience, and ability to investigate this type of experiment.

My 2 cents

"may we have someone look over your shoulder as well?"

Not look over his shoulder. be involved in his study. Work side by side.

"sure there are security issues with bringing in outside people to someone's lab"

What security issues? If they are both scientists and have the credentials to prove it, why couldn't one scientist enter anothers lab?

"He is doing it for the sake of furthering his own knowledge, and answering his curiousness."

Then whats the harm to have another professional to help him out with that? If he is curious himself about whether or not there is thermitic metarial in the WTC powder, chances are that he favors one side of the argument and is not totally neutral on the topic.

Otherwise why would he be going out of his way to get this testing done at minimal costs?

This study would put to rest allot more if there was a scientist from both sides present.



Im sorry, but there is too much taking people at their word going on in this study. Thing should be done so both sides can see the testing while it's happening.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Who did the "truth scientists" involve in their "study"? Any non-truthers? Has it ever dawned on you that maybe if they did, none of this would be necessary? Your "Critical thinking" lacks the option that they could actually be the deceitful ones and this study needs to be independent of them.

I thought you were "super".

Yes. That could be possible. Although I doubt it because there is no motivation for harrit/Jones claim other than to find out the truth of what happened. I asked that yesterday and got back a bunch of irrelevant responses.

Let's say hypothetically that Jones/Harrit were deceitful. A scientist from both sides this time would eliminate those possibilities.