• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

twinstead said:
I'm shocked at this example of shoddy work in a body of otherwise stellar truther research...
Click to expand...

Another instance of this board coming back to haunt me. I was mid-conference call when I read this, and guffawed. I was slick though, told them I coughed on ice from my water. Well done.
 
I'm going to make a prediction here:

Some time from now, a twoofer - either a new member or an existing one - will make the assertion that the Millette paper has been "thouroughly debunked" or "proven to be fraudulent".

Twoofers don't care about the truth.
 
Odd that none of our resident CDers/Therm*ters have ventured into here to comment...or is it?
 
Sunstealer said:
What seems to be more significant is the lack of response.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it did just come out. Your average Truther is still talking about the hijackers still being alive...we gotta give 'em more time.
 
fourtoe said:
To be fair, it did just come out. Your average Truther is still talking about the hijackers still being alive...we gotta give 'em more time.
Click to expand...
I think most are waiting for Harrit, Jones and the rest of them to tell them what to say. This flew so far over their heads they never even saw it,
 
DGM said:
I think most are waiting for Harrit, Jones and the rest of them to tell them what to say. This flew so far over their heads they never even saw it,
Click to expand...
Aren't they either dismissing it outright or doing what Kevin Ryan is doing and just try and discredit Millette and Mohr?
 
All very interesting! As you can see, there are some 9/11 Truth activists who are supportive or at least guardedly interested. Of course, I sent the link a few days ago to Jones, Harrit, Ryan and Roberts (signatories to the 2009 Bentham paper), and Richard Gage. Too early to expect a response yet.
 
chrismohr said:
All very interesting! As you can see, there are some 9/11 Truth activists who are supportive or at least guardedly interested. Of course, I sent the link a few days ago to Jones, Harrit, Ryan and Roberts (signatories to the 2009 Bentham paper), and Richard Gage. Too early to expect a response yet.
Click to expand...

Did any of them explain why they wouldn't let Dr Millette test their dust or chip samples? I mean, you'd think they'd love independent confirmation of their findings.

It almost seems like they're not confident in their own analysis, but maybe I'm reading into it...
 
chrismohr said:
All very interesting! As you can see, there are some 9/11 Truth activists who are supportive or at least guardedly interested. Of course, I sent the link a few days ago to Jones, Harrit, Ryan and Roberts (signatories to the 2009 Bentham paper), and Richard Gage. Too early to expect a response yet.
Click to expand...

Jones already found the time to spew nonsense at 911blogger:
SE Jones said:
The LLNL tests on known nano-thermite referred to in the Harrit

et al. paper were conducted in air -- according to an interview by Dr. Farrer with one of the LLNL researchers listed on that paper.

The key issue you correctly identify is important to re-emphasize: the formation of metallic-iron-rich spheres upon ignition of the red material -- which demonstrates very high temperatures and that a thermitic reaction has occurred.
Click to expand...
That's a lie.
SE Jones said:
Yes, Mark Basile has done excellent work so far on the red-gray

chips; please note that his research is continuing (I understand).

"Furthermore, paint does not ignite when subjected to a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) like these chips do, demonstrating energetic properties" -- actually, paint samples will probably ignite in a DSC while demonstrating different properties (such as the narrowness of the thermal spike).

Dr. Farrer has ignited a paint sample in a DSC and the paint sample showed a much broader thermal spike, indicating a relatively slow heat-release (compared to the red/gray chips).
Click to expand...
Yes, and Basile showed there is less than 5% (that includes the high possibility for 0%) thermite in the red layer, which means >98% of the energy come from organic combustion. If only Jones would understand
And Farrer forgot to tell us which paint he tested, forgot to show us the DSC trace of that paint, and forgot to tell us which chips he put in the DSC.
SE Jones said:
For further discussion on nano-thermite,

please see my Blog from May 2011:

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-10/responses-questions-regarding-ther...

My best wishes to the 9/11 truth community. FYI, my main research focus at this time remains on seeking alternative energy sources for the benefit of mankind. See (for example):

http://www.physics.byu.edu/TalkList.aspx?talkID=247
Click to expand...
Ah - Jones tells us pre-emptively he won't put much time in defending his old nonsense cuz he's busy inventing new nonsense.
SE Jones said:
Agreed that the OBSERVED free-fall acceleration of WTC7

is very strong evidence for questioning the official 9/11 narrative. David Chandler and I questioned NIST about their analysis in August 2008, and NIST finally provided the graph you show -- which indisputably verifies that WTC7 exhibited free-fall acceleration for over 100 feet.

Yes, with this evidence regarding WTC7 including the admission from NIST -- and numerous other evidences -- I agree that "We could have 9/11 truth without nanothermite."

At the same time, I am confident that the Harrit et al. conclusion will stand the test of time -- that the red material found in the WTC dust represents a thermitic material.
Click to expand...
He better prepare for a surprise

Another author of ATM also replied in that thread:
FM Legge said:
Nice, but not necessary

Wildbear, yes it would be interesting to see whether the red chips would ignite in the same way in an oxygen-free atmosphere. However, if they did not, it would prove nothing against the Active Thermitic Material hypothesis, as oxygen was present in the towers.

The important criterion regarding the DSC test is that the product is globular iron, hence previously molten. There is no way that the combustion of organic material in air can produce a temperature high enough to produce molten iron.

For those promoting "thermitic paint", the responsibility is theirs to find a sample of such material and to show that it had been applied in large scale in the towers. A theory without evidence is just a distraction.
Click to expand...
Legge totally misrepresents the reasons why DSC is done, and certainly what he presents there is not in line with what he presented in 2009 when he co-authored ATM, with it's two Figures devoted to DSC traces and discussion thereof.
 
Not terribly surprised at those responses they gave, but it ain't shocking either. I believe chrismohr went through with the lab tests with the full knowledge that people would try to downplay it whatever it took; while I can appreciate his patience with other major 9/11 truth figures I'm not personally placing bets on them agreeing either. The lab tests serve their purpose... they satisfy a curiosity and whether truthers accepts the findings or not, it shows the nano-thermite argument for what it is... a fake
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
...The lab tests serve their purpose... they satisfy a curiosity and whether truthers accepts the findings or not, it shows the nano-thermite argument for what it is... a fake
Click to expand...
Correct. And a valid exercise for those who were interested. But let's not lose sight of the context.

The only reason we are discussing thermXte is because truthers have tried to claim that there was controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11. And, one subset of the claim, is that the CD used thermXte.

Both claims patently and obviously false. And the thermXte claims are near enough to irrelevant from the truther/debunker perspective. There was no CD so there was no way that thermXte could have been used in CD. Only truthers would present the argument backwards starting with thermXte. They do that because they know that they cannot support CD so thermXte is a nice sideline.

Enter the trolls who will use any sideline to keep discussion circling and not advancing.

The trolls have also taken the sideline tactic one layer further with iron rich microspheres.

And I have predicted even sillier, more remote sidelines such as "What is the colour of the left side of a micro-sphere?" (which will cause them more problems as they try to define "left side of a sphere" but such minor issues never stop determined trolls do they? :rolleyes: )

All of it predictable as is the truther/trolls responses to the Millette study. Satisfying truther/trolls wasn't the objective anyway so their response is no loss.
 
LSSBB said:
Oystein, where'd you get a 1000 bucks??? And what did Chris do with all our money?//
;)
Click to expand...
Wow it sure is nice here in Cabo San Lucas! Wish you were here!

;)

Hey, why did Oystein get all the credit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom