Chain of Custody

[plague311]

I am showing dates from going on 5 years ago. Did the person who personally emailed you say if anything came from these accusations? So far all I'm seeing is a failed attempt at discrediting Millette, and an accusation that they withheld information.

Like my mom used to say, don't point fingers cause you have 3 pointing right back at you.

Man I'm dumb, I forgot. The gummamint wouldn't follow this because of the conspiracy. I'm such a dope.

 

[DGM]

I am showing dates from going on 5 years ago. Did the person who personally emailed you say if anything came from these accusations? So far all I'm seeing is a failed attempt at discrediting Millette, and an accusation that they withheld information.

Like my mom used to say, don't point fingers cause you have 3 pointing right back at you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/36977/cbs-responds/stephen-spruiell
http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/A...988swd00002_(jul_10_1998)_163727_cadec_sd.HTM

She is an intense woman who believes that any means are acceptable if, in her view, the ends are desirable, including lying (even under oath), searching through co-workers’ personal effects, and leaking confidential information.

Things that make you go ..........humm.

 

[plague311]

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/36977/cbs-responds/stephen-spruiell
http://www.oalj.dol.gov/Decisions/A...988swd00002_(jul_10_1998)_163727_cadec_sd.HTM




Things that make you go ..........humm.

Ugh don't truthers get sick of having to defend the people that state these accusations. Do they seriously walk away with the mentality of "I really showed them"?

SCT, it looks like these accusations are all it was. Someone nuttier than squirrel puke throwing out non-evidence based drivel.

 

[Miragememories]

Ugh don't truthers get sick of having to defend the people that state these accusations. Do they seriously walk away with the mentality of "I really showed them"?

SCT, it looks like these accusations are all it was. Someone nuttier than squirrel puke throwing out non-evidence based drivel.

How is this drivel on topic?

MM

 

[NoahFence]

How is this drivel on topic?

MM

 

[plague311]

How is this drivel on topic?

MM

SLT posts information contesting Millette's integrity --> information turns out to be more nutty troofer misfire --> I call a duck a duck --> You post it's off topic.

Sorry I have to break it down for you, might want to ask your troofer buddy how it got to be where it is. I can dumb it down a bit more if you need to.

 

[chrismohr]

Hi MM/Red Ibis/Superlogical etc.,

Wow lots of stuff to respond to. Since Kevin Ryan will have no part of this study, it will go forward in the standard manner. If YOU want to organize yet another dust study that both Kevin Ryan and the many debunkers can sign off on, by all means go ahead. In fact, two days ago I emailed Kevin yet again and told him that if he is unhappy with this study, I or someone else will happily "broker" a test that Kevin and other scientists can both sign off on together. Even the expense issue could be ameliorated by having the tests done in India (seriously, they have quality labs too and are not anywhere near the US geopolitically). But you will have to do the fundraising this time. In the meantime, my test is the best I could come up with after rejecting over two dozen other scientists, labs and universities who I felt were unqualified.

I have also told Jim Millette that chain of custody will be important, and even mentioned the desire of some of you to have someone watching over his shoulder. I will not pressure him to say yes to this unprecedented demand, and ask that you consider how likely it would be that Niels Harrit would have consented to having Ivan or Oystein or Sunstealer watching his every move when he did his tests. Also, as for claims of Millette's "deceptiveness," I copy for you my fact-check on Kevin Ryan's accusation. I can find absolutely nothing but ad hominem attacks against Jim Millette:

Millette has also been accused of "deception" by chemist and 9/11 experimenter Kevin Ryan, because he didn't mention iron microspheres in the dust he studied and reported on. This morning I took a little time to fact-check Kevin's accusation because several of us on both sides of this debate have put money on the table to have him study these red-gray chips. An accusation of deception on the part of the lead experimenter is a serious one, and since I plan to give Dr. Millette the go-ahead this week I wanted to take one more look at that accusation to be sure we're not wasting our money.

Here is the Jim Millette study Kevin Ryan accuses of being deceptive:

57_Lioy-characterization east of wtc.pdf

To save you all time, I scanned through it. He wrote, "The SEM dispersive X-Ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials." So iron was definitely found in dust-size particles (this was a study of dust) and duly reported in the study.

The study looks much more closely at concentrations of environmental contaminants, and they found and measured amounts of mercury, arsenic, low-level radioactive materials, lead, glass fibers, dioxins, silica, asbestos, radionuclides, pesticides, diphenyl ethers, partially burned jet fuel, cellulose, and a large number of complex organic chemicals. The purpose of the study? "The results... can be used to understand... the exposures... and the evaluations of any acute or long term health effects." This was a study to help understand the possible health hazards of exposure to WTC dust.

Here is how Jim Millette responded to Kevin's accusation of deception:

"Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked (an original copy of the article published in Environmental Health Perspectives is a attached) to suggest that we were publishing misleading data. Jim Millette"

I am fully satisfied with his answer and the integrity of this study, Kevin Ryan's accusations notwithstanding. Millette's study mentions "large signals for iron." Yesterday one of Kevin's supporters told me I should have the "courage" to keep pressing Dr. Millette on the matter of not identifying them as microspheres. It is not my question. It is Kevin Ryan's false accusation of deception, which I can find no evidence of. Dr. Millette mentioned lots of dust-sized iron particles in the study but Kevin attacks him for the fact that he didn't call them microspheres. It would be madness to go further with this line of questioning. I had the courage to ask Dr. Millette once. He was gracious enough to answer me. I had the courage to tell Kevin Ryan he's making ad hominem attacks. He called me dishonest.

 

[twinstead]

There is NO way the truthers in this forum are going to accept ANY study that doesn't find thermitic material, no matter who performs it. Period. chrismohr I applaud your attempt at including them in the process, even though I suspect you realize it too.

 

[NoahFence]

Too many syllables in that post Chris. They won't read it.

 

[twinstead]

Too many syllables in that post Chris. They won't read it.

Oh no he di'int!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

9/11 Truth scientist

That is an Oxymoron.


So who did Jones invite to keep an eye on Him?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Too many syllables in that post Chris. They won't read it.

and no youtube videos

 

[BasqueArch]

Well then what are the reasons in your opinion. I asked yesterday.

What is the motivation for the Betheam scientist then?

Temperament -as produced by nature and nurture. Happiness and self-approval is everyone's drive.

Why do some people jump out of perfectly good airplanes in flight?
Why do some people climb up the faces of high rise buildings without safety equipment?

It is the 9/11 conspiracist's temperament; they can't help it. They're compelled to content their desires first even if they conflict with reason.

For those that do not share this 9/11 conspiracist temperament, reason is sufficient to prove them wrong.

(recommended - "What Is Man?" - Mark Twain)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

He makes no money from this. His reputaion is tarnished because of it. He lost his job because of it.

Next.

That happened after he wrote the "paper". He likely was seeking to retrieve his career after the money for Cold fusion ran out and nobody was interested in Pre Columbian horses (look it up ). At the time he was working on this he was a tenured professor at BYU. So yes he was being paid.

It was only after he published the "paper" in Bentham, that he decided to retire before the University threw him out for bringing them into disrepute (this is usually called "an offer you cannot refuse")

The work for the paper is poorly conceived, poorly carried out, poorly documented and the data does not support the conclusions made. It doesn't get much worse than that.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Temperament -as produced by nature and nurture. Happiness and self-approval is everyone's drive.

Self actualization. The top motivation in Maslows hierarchy of needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Oh maybe we can get Kevin Ryan from Underwater Laboratories to bring his own special blend of twoofer dust and work alongside Jim Millette?????

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Chris, first of all, thank you again for your effort

- As concerns a chain of custody, I have to repeat with Oystein: finding the same kind of chips by both Bentham team and Jim Millette's team should serve as an evidence of the good chain of custody for both sorts of samples simultaneously. There is no way to claim that Bentham chips are nanothermite and Jim's chips with the exactly same appearance, XEDS, SEM, thermal behavior and other characteristics (attached gray layers, e.g.) are "our" paint, namely if FTIR microscopy proves epoxy resin as a binder. Let me suppose that truthers will suggest that Jim's chips are somehow faked or so. Then, how these chips were faked, why they have the same look and properties as Bentham chips (a) to (d) and why they behave like paint and not thermite?

- I am just curious: when you look to the contributions like Oystein post #54 here, what is actually your opinion? I think that XEDS spectra are quite simple (at least for such a simple mixture of stuffs), in comparison with e.g. infrared, magnetic resonance or mass spectrometry results, and therefore they can serve as a kind of evidence even for laymen. It is apparent to me that XEDS spectra of Laclede primer paint simulated by Almond are in almost ideal match with the real spectra of Bentham chips (a) to (d). Do you still think that this could be some accidental coincidence? Or you are not still sure what all those XEDS spectra mean, or do you think that, e.g., Almond calculated some faked spectra? (Well, some surprise in the future is still not completely excluded but I think we have already collected pretty good hints that we are on the right track.)

- You wrote that you are in contact with Kevin Ryan and that he still refuses what is currently discussed here in JREF. Does Kevin Ryan really know the composition of Laclede paint presented in NIST report, its simulated XEDS spectra and all other relevant stuff from our "paint thread"? If yes, what are actually his objections and arguments against "Laclede paint hypothesis"?

 

[chrismohr]

Ivan re above: If I say I don't fully understand the arguments presented by either side, you have to appreciate the depth of ignorance of people unschooled in chemistry or science in general. I have never seen XEDS, SEM, FTIR spectra, etc. I have never seen them applied in any way in my life except here with this issue. So the best I can do is follow along with explanations that are given to me. Some people, like Oystein, are good explainers so I say OK, I think I understand this but it`remains very abstract.

With physics, I've told this story before: in high school I used calculus to figure out acceleration of acceleration, when a spaceship is hurtling towards earth and the gravitational pull increases as the spaceship gets closer. Not only did I understand physics, I was well on my way to applying its basic principles to coming up with my own answers to problems I posed for myself. So it's been pretty easy to not only follow but really get inside the physics arguments presented by both sides. I make mistakes in language and terminology, and I certainly can't solve advance physics equations, but when I used to get emails from David Chandler I could see something was wrong and really understand the explanations from others as to why. I can define acceleration and resistance and force and mass and weight in layman's terms. I can't define XEDS, SEM, FTIR spectra, etc. I can explain the need for independent scientific verification of any study, whether it be the Bentham paper or Einstein's theories. So this study, for me, will clear up the back-and-forth among me, Kevin Ryan and all you guys.

Kevin has said that "1. The low level zinc that was noted in Fig 14 of the "Active Thermitic" paper was attributed to surface contamination. That is because it was very low (barely detectable) and it is known that the WTC primer paint contains zinc at over 30% in the dry state. Please see this article by Niels Harrit for an additional discussion on these kinds of differences between the chips and the WTC primer paint.
http://stj911.org/blog/?p=325
Of course, the primer paint does not ignite at 430 C, does not form metallic spheres (of any kind, let alone those which match with thermitic products) when ignited, does dissolve in organic solvents, and so forth."

In a couple Q&A's with me he and I said, "(Me): The tested materials (such as red/grey chips) were burned in regular air, where argon or nitrogen or other inert gas should have been used to distinguish thermitic from nonthermitic elements. Thermitic materials burn without oxygen; the hyrdocarbcon fires ignited from the WTC crashes themselves burn only with oxygen.
- The DSC experiment might very well be performed in an inert environment next time. But that takes nothing away from the finding of an energetic response in the chips. The energy given off per unit mass was shown to be as high as typical high explosives, and the sharp spike in release was an important finding. The DSC experiment gives additional evidence that the chips are nanothermite because the temperature and dynamics of energy release are very close to that of known nanothermite. Of course, our paper gives a number of other reasons why the chips match with nanothermite (e.g. intimately (nanoscale) mixed aluminum and iron oxide, formation of metallic spheres which match the composition of thermitic spheres).
(Me) Manieri, the rebutting scientist from Italy, claimed that all the materials found in the dust (including aluminum) were identical to the chemical composition of the paint, fire retardant, vermiculite, sound-proofing and rustproofing materials.
(Kevin) - One strong piece of evidence that our peer-reviewed papers are on the right track is that there has been no legitimate scientific rebuttal to any of them at all, in years. This "Italian paper" that you mention is not a peer-reviewed paper but is a string of contrarian arguments posted on someone's personal website. Scientists do not rebut peer-reviewed scientific articles by means of unreviewed webpages. Other signs that this person is not a professional scientist is that he/she uses an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) as a primary source of evidence for the claim that MEK reacts with aluminum. Scientists do not use MSDS sheets as literature sources for chemical reactions. MSDSs are used to communicate safety concerns mainly in industrial settings, not scientific findings.
- The red-gray chips tested do not withstand 650 C, do not have Zinc, and don't dissolve in an organic solvent (but known paint chips do). Other analyses, not yet published, also indicate that the red chips are not paint. I have WTC paint samples and can tell you that, in addition to these facts, the paint looks nothing like the red-gray chips."

This is an example of why I can't be confident that either side is right. I can't rebut Kevin or even fully understand your rebuttals. I can understand that someone of the caliber of Jim Millette can try his own experiments and see what he finds.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

Thanks, Chris

- We should perhaps move again to the paint thread with such posts.
- As concerns XEDS spectra, I have also met this kind of measurements for the first time in the connection with Bentham paper I just think that in some cases their interpretation (matching with something known) can be quite easy and convincing, working as a kind of evidence by comparing "XEDS fingerprints".
- From the reaction of Kevin Ryan it is very apparent that a) he doesn't know what was found in "our" paint thread or b) he doesn't understand what was found there. The second possibility is less probable, I think.

 

[BasqueArch]

Self actualization. The top motivation in Maslows hierarchy of needs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Re: 9/11 conspiracist's motivation to believe against reason and suspect Millette's chain of custody, I agree with Maslow's critics (in above link) that

In their extensive review of research based on Maslow's theory, Wahba and Brudwell found little evidence for the ranking of needs Maslow described, or even for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.[14] Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max-Neef has also argued fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical..."

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Twain's Law of Human Nature (What Is Man?1906) conforms with this [/FONT]non-hierarchical[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] evidence and is useful because describes motivation more precisely since it explains more and is tested true all the time. For one instance it explains why one ship captain will be the last one to leave and another won't.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Twain's Law of Human Nature - [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any first and foremost object but one - to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort, for himself.[/FONT]

The[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] noblest impulses and the basest proceed from that one source.
Twain's Law of Human Nature should be studied in college philosophy and psychology courses.
[soapbox, sorry]
[/FONT]