WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Still not working here. The second one works. Weird.It works fine here.
Maybe you are viewing it with a different browser?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Just looked, the post looks fine.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Works OK Down Under.
Can we presume you have done the obvious like - flush the browser caches and rebooted the machine?
Chris, you once very arrogantly compared the demand to investigate what is considered as explosive/incendiary evidence by the NFPA, to the demand to investigate if aliens did 9/11. That´s how much of a joke this is too you.
Witnesses to explosions, flying projectiles, powdered building remains, and molten metal and other indicators of extremely high temperatures are all examples of evidence for incendiaries/explosives according to the NFPA, but not you.
It does not matter that you think you can dismiss explosion witnesses because you think they might have been hearing something other than explosives/incendiaries going off. The ruling of whether or not they heard incendiaries/explosives or something else would have been decided by the investigation, had it been done.
The same goes for the identity of the molten metal found in the rubble. It does not matter that you think you can dismiss reports of molten steel and iron because you beileve it could possibly have been created by some natural means instead of by explosives/incendiaries. A scientific investigation would have been required to make that determination by chemical tests as determined by the NFPA.
If murder investigations were conducted like NIST did the WTC investigation no-one would ever bother to investigate witness reports, DNA or gather fingerprints, because all evidence could be dismissed beforehand since logically any evidence might not conclusively prove anything in the end. Why bother collecting DNA from the blood in the hope that it might give away the murderer when it could simply be the blood from the victim only? Why document the fingerprints when they could be from the victim and not the murderer? Why document the witnesses that heard a gunshot when it is possible they only heard a car backfire?
In fact why not just say that there was no blood, no fingerprints, and no witnesses to save the taxpayer some coins, eh? And if some people object just call them twoofies and smear them as anti-Semites. Works every time.
In fact why not just say that there was no blood, no fingerprints, and no witnesses to save the taxpayer some coins, eh? And if some people object just call them twoofies and smear them as anti-Semites. Works every time.
That's some first class frontier hyperbole! Woweeee...
ozeco41
Philosopher
That's some first class frontier hyperbole! Woweeee...
And that old bit of nonsense misapplying NFPA 921
Which is - in its own words - "is the foremost guide for rendering accurate opinions as to incident origin, cause, responsibility, and prevention."
When:
"incident origin" was known from the outset;
"cause" likewise - the proximate cause self evident and the bigger picture causes scarcely the subject for a fire fighting/preventing protocol.
"responsibility" quickly identified by methods far superior to those needed to determine the average arsonist
AND
Only a truther could suggest that "prevention" of terrorist attacks would be achieved by investigating for signs of deliberate fire lighting.
And - over all that - the pretence that there wasn't any investigation.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Well, that's how much of a joke it is to everyone else. Chris is one of the rare few who actually bother to take your nonsense seriously enough to look into it sensibly. The sort of abuse he gets from you as a result simply validates everyone else's position that it was never worth it in the first place.
Dave
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Chris, you once very arrogantly compared the demand to investigate what is considered as explosive/incendiary evidence by the NFPA, to the demand to investigate if aliens did 9/11. That´s how much of a joke this is too you.
Witnesses to explosions, flying projectiles, powdered building remains, and molten metal and other indicators of extremely high temperatures are all examples of evidence for incendiaries/explosives according to the NFPA, but not you.
It does not matter that you think you can dismiss explosion witnesses because you think they might have been hearing something other than explosives/incendiaries going off. The ruling of whether or not they heard incendiaries/explosives or something else would have been decided by the investigation, had it been done.
The same goes for the identity of the molten metal found in the rubble. It does not matter that you think you can dismiss reports of molten steel and iron because you beileve it could possibly have been created by some natural means instead of by explosives/incendiaries. A scientific investigation would have been required to make that determination by chemical tests as determined by the NFPA.
If murder investigations were conducted like NIST did the WTC investigation no-one would ever bother to investigate witness reports, DNA or gather fingerprints, because all evidence could be dismissed beforehand since logically any evidence might not conclusively prove anything in the end. Why bother collecting DNA from the blood in the hope that it might give away the murderer when it could simply be the blood from the victim only? Why document the fingerprints when they could be from the victim and not the murderer? Why document the witnesses that heard a gunshot when it is possible they only heard a car backfire?
In fact why not just say that there was no blood, no fingerprints, and no witnesses to save the taxpayer some coins, eh? And if some people object just call them twoofies and smear them as anti-Semites. Works every time.
Please explain to me what good aerogel thermites
would do in cutting a steel column?
Why not just use strings of pop corn and
Let it pop in the fires?
They go of when the plane hits and flake
Off the steel.
Now a.good copper oxide, Iron oxide, thermitic oxygen
Cutter now that would actually cut steel.
It is clear Ziggi Steven E.Jones faked the results
with Harrit after reading the 2004 paper on aerogel thermites.
That is what the Harrit&Jones paper actually shows.
Faking results to come to a false conclusion, based
on a flawed conception of the aerogel thermites being
Explosive. The organic binder is the only explosive part
Of aerogel thermites.
Copper oxide nano thermites have high
Enough burn rate to actually be low explosive.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Simple Millette found paint chips, that to the uninformed, slightly resemble aerogel thermites from a paper Jones read and
Referenced in 2004-5.
He used the paper as proof that nano thermites
Could be explosive, then searhed for anything
In the dust, that resembled Aerogel thermite,
From the 2004 paper.
That flawed reasoning lead to the Jones& Harrit
Paper, which the Millette paper disproves.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Yes, and Ziggi, in post #4926, fails to talk about paint chips or Millette entirely and instead moves a goal post, and everyone follows. How is what NIST did or did not relevant to the Millette study? The NIST reports were finished in 2008, the Millette report was published in 2012.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Ziggi is just engaging in a strawman arguement, trying to use
Nist to prove non existent problems
In Millette's paper.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
I'm not biting Ziggi. The main thrust of my response to your email to me was to rebut your claims that the thermitic paper is irrefutable and I gave reasons, point by point. The NFPA 921 protocols are a whole new direction that has nothing to do with whether there is thermite in the dust. It has nothing to do with whether the buildings collapsed as natural consequence of plane crashes or fires or if CD was employed. That is why I don't know much about them. I don't pursue the nontechnical/political aspects of 9/11Truth except to toss out opinions sometimes.Chris, you once very arrogantly compared the demand to investigate what is considered as explosive/incendiary evidence by the NFPA, to the demand to investigate if aliens did 9/11. That´s how much of a joke this is too you.
Witnesses to explosions, flying projectiles, powdered building remains, and molten metal and other indicators of extremely high temperatures are all examples of evidence for incendiaries/explosives according to the NFPA, but not you.
It does not matter that you think you can dismiss explosion witnesses because you think they might have been hearing something other than explosives/incendiaries going off. The ruling of whether or not they heard incendiaries/explosives or something else would have been decided by the investigation, had it been done.
The same goes for the identity of the molten metal found in the rubble. It does not matter that you think you can dismiss reports of molten steel and iron because you beileve it could possibly have been created by some natural means instead of by explosives/incendiaries. A scientific investigation would have been required to make that determination by chemical tests as determined by the NFPA.
If murder investigations were conducted like NIST did the WTC investigation no-one would ever bother to investigate witness reports, DNA or gather fingerprints, because all evidence could be dismissed beforehand since logically any evidence might not conclusively prove anything in the end. Why bother collecting DNA from the blood in the hope that it might give away the murderer when it could simply be the blood from the victim only? Why document the fingerprints when they could be from the victim and not the murderer? Why document the witnesses that heard a gunshot when it is possible they only heard a car backfire?
In fact why not just say that there was no blood, no fingerprints, and no witnesses to save the taxpayer some coins, eh? And if some people object just call them twoofies and smear them as anti-Semites. Works every time.
I'm suspicious of you claiming that NFPA 921 HAS to be applied in a case where planes fly into a building. I do know that it is a general recommended protocol only. I'm especially suspicious of your claim that massive investigations by FEMA, NIST and the FBI all blatantly ignored a required protocol. Does this general protocol even apply to big jets crashing into buildings? Why is there not a single major institution anywhere in the world challenging NIST's methodology? Oh, wait, I'm biting. Sorry. This is out of my area of research and officially I have no opinion about it, nor do I have any interest in chasing this assertion of yours, when it is the identical form of argument to Iron-rich spheres MUST equal thermite.
Whew, you almost got me to bite again. It's one of your favorite tricks with me, just like when you claimed that iron-rich microspheres can be created ONLY with thermite, or at least ONLY with bulk temperatures that prove bulk melting of steel. Well, you were wrong and I have told you so and why. And you have completely ignored or trashed the months of research I did before finally finding two fire chemists, one of whom linked me to published papers where laser thermometers revealed >melting steel temps in highly localized areas that could potentially melt and iron-reduce tiny flakes of rust. And the other talked about his own experiments where a eutectic mix of iron oxide and aluminum resulted in melting of steel at around 1200F. Oh, and that video I found about how to create a mini-thermite reaction with two rusty cannonballs, one covered in aluminum foil, smacked together at an angle. Oh yes, and how about the WIkiAnswers "How to reduce iron oxide to iron" which uses regular fire surrounded by sand? Oh goodness, then there's Dave Thomas's second experiment I goaded him into doing where, whaddaya know, he found iron-rich microspheres? Oh yeah, and then there was Ivan's experiments I goaded him into as well, which found visual evidence of iron-rich spheres from regular fires just before he died (and did not live to measure the iron content of his discovery)? And my failed attempt (so far) to find someone to look for iron rich spheres in campfire ashes to prove Beachnut right or wrong? Yeah, I'm ignoring the Harrit/Jones paper all right. No, you are ignoring, mocking or finding excuses to reject every single thing I discover. Nothing I say is good enough for you. If I discover it here you trash my "JREF buddies." If I find it elsewhere (as I did for over half of my research on your "iron rich spheres = thermite 100% proof" claim) you fall silent.
You also ignore my warnings that my next video is chock full of 9/11 Truth people challenging or trashing the thermitic paper of 2009.
And BTW your accusation of arrogance? Before putting out that first video I had several people tell me about mininukes, aliens, deathstar rays and more, and all complained that NIST did not investigate their theories. They are as sincere and earnest and convinced of their position as you. And, egalitarian that I am, I think you are all equally wrong. It's entirely appropriate to tell my audience that there are many theories out there, not just yours, that NIST has not fully researched. And their answer to all of you is the same (this from a phone conversation with them): "We follow the evidence, and there was no evidence for explosives or thermite." I repeat: there was no evidence for any of these theories in the initial data that was coming in from the field. But I was getting pressure from all the Judy Woods, alien, mininuke, death ray, no-planer, a religious wingnut who have called me a "false prophet", and anti-Semitic factions of the 9/11 CD movement. They wanted me to confront NIST about why their theory wasn't properly investigated. This is not arrogance, it is treating everyone as fairly as possible. And with the exception of the antiSemites who make me puke and the religious crazy whom I found physically frightening, I politely responded to all of them, saying thanks for the information, but I am choosing to spend my time investigating the CD theories of Richard Gage since it is he I will debate, and wished them luck in their research. Arrogant? No. As fair-minded and gentle ass I could be to people who believe in different CD theories from yours.
Of course, I have taken the CD/thermite theory more seriously than the other competing theories, so obviously I chose to research the theory that seemed to have some possibility of uncovering the truth.
Love,Chris
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
No need to be suspicious - you can be sure. It doesn't. He is wrong. It is an old and long rebutted canard. And I already commented briefly on that off topic issue a few posts back - post #4828.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Steven Jones, back in like 2005, 2006, when he first came around with microspheres and talk of thermate, reported iron contents of, 10, 20, even 30%. I can try to dig up a link if that helps.
For perspective: Fully oxidized iron, Fe2O3, in pure state, is 70% iron, 30% oxygen. So what Jones found back then wasn't even half iron oxide.
Ziggi is ignoring Millette's data.
In a thread about Millette's data, that is a rich feat.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Yes and Ziggi falls for the Jones fallacy that
The preasure work mentioned in the litterature,
Means aerojel thermites are explosive.
They might one day make a good fire cracker
But that is all.
You have just revealed that you have been making authoritative public claims for years about there having been no CD evidence, without knowing what the NFPA 921 is, which means you never knew what is officially acknowledged as evidence for incendiaries/explosives/CD.
And instead of acknowledging and correcting your mistake, you try to continue to dismiss the NFPA evidence guidline.
And you keep repeating your same old claim about "no evidence" as if you still consider yourself to be the authority regarding what is evidence, instead of the NFPA 921. What a mighty fine Ivory Tower you reside in Chris.
I can´t even be sure that you are being serious when you try to dismiss the 921 as "nontechnical/political." It is an investigative manual that helps you to identify evidence for incendiaries and explosives, and how to handle it. It tells you that the evidence I have already listed for you constitutes as evidence for incendiaries and explosives, and that this sort of evidence turns the investigation from a natural fire investigation to an investigation into the potential use of incendiaries and explosives, or simply a potential CD.
I thought the murder investigation analogy was clear enough. The powdered dust, reports of flashes of light, explosions, melted metal, iron spheres and all that stuff was like finding gun powder, blood spatter and bullet holes at a death scene. If the DA refuses to investigate this as a potential crime because he or she claims no evidence was found to to justify thinking that this was anything but a guy dying in his sleep, you would know that this official investigation was complete BS. This is what NIST did.
This is what you have to understand to continue this discussion: it does not matter that you/the DA might think that there could have been other explanations for the blood spatter and bullet holes. An investigation could perhaps reveal other explanations for the evidence, but the investigator cannot refuse to investigate the blood and the bullet holes on the grounds that there was no blood or bullet holes! This is what NIST did and that is what you are defending.
It would be even more ludicrous to evade investigation of the bullet holes and blood on the grounds that you might as well look for little green hitmen from outer space, but that is what you have done. That you have tried to compare following the NFPA 921 to listening to people that belive that aliens did 9/11 is absolutely jaw-dropping. If you are sincere then you are simply in a deep state of denial and that is understandable given the gravity of the crime being discussed. And please take your time responding. I won´t be able to respond much for a a while. At best I will be able to answer a single point like this once in a while.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
I agree Ziggi lets use the 921 protocols, you can start by redoing the
Jones & Harrit research to bring it in line with 921.
Then you can start listing natural sources for the
Observed materials and data.
Then we can continue when and only when you have repeatable
confirmation of the evidence and shown your
Do diligence in eliminating all possible natural
sources, and misleading false leads.