DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Do you think this answers the question? Are you claiming it invalidated a study that hadn't been done yet?
Come on, I know you can read.
Last edited:
WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette
- Thread starter chrismohr
- Start date
Come on, I know you can read.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Who again were the peers for the Harrit paper?
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
None of the people who "reviewed" the paper were peers. None of them have the relevant experience in materials science or other relevant subject nor the independence to be able to review the paper. Only truthers got to see the paper, there was never any independent review.
Truthers know this, but refuse to admit it because one of their central tenets is that the paper was peer reviewed and therefore legitimate. It wasn't and isn't.
To a truther, anyone who has a vaguely sciencey title is an expert on any and every other scientific topic known to man as long as they support truther theories on 9/11.
I'd be willing to bet that less than 200 people have actually read the Harrit et al paper, the reason it's never been cited or responded to is because it is irrelevant and worthless.
Of those that have read the nonsense I bet less than 30 are actually qualified to understand the data. I'm not including authors or truthers in those figures because it's apparent that they don't understand the data either.
Want proof?
From the paper itself:
So here they have no idea what they are looking at. It's obvious to anyone that they have lots of different red paints with widely differing compositions due to the range of elements observed and the simplistic isolation method.
They claim laboratory produced nano-thermite, but observe elements commonly found in paint and it's natural pigments that would never be present in thermite let alone present in some batches and not others because materials produced in factories let alone laboratories are very well controlled and produced to specification.
Anything red and attracted by magnet is thermite in their eyes. It's hilariously simplistic. That's why they were in such a kerfuffle when Millette actually showed that what they had was red paint. All of a sudden they had to claim something different even though they never detailed any differences or methods of separation in their paper.
Secondly they are completely mystified by what the gray layer is even though the data in the paper tells them. Even to this day truthers including Basile and Harrit are unaware that the gray layer is actually oxidised steel commonly known as rust. Their own data tells them.
Their FTIR data isn't very good, the spectrum is poorly reproduced and unfortunately scribbled on with a false comparison so it's impossible to read. Looking at the spectrum, off the top of my head the wide shallow trough around 3300 is stretching of the O-H bond, small trough at roughly 1600 is C=C.
The sharp troughs below 1000 are essentially the fingerprint and differ wildly from Gash et al. Some of the spectrum is similar to goethite or FeOOH which is common in rust. In rust you get the O-H stretch plus O-H bend at 3300 and iirc 1400. There is a large drop off and then alpha and delta FeOOH sharp troughs due to OH. FeO is typically at 570 and 630 ish.
From the descriptions we don't even know if what they describe as the gray layer is even the same as described in Harrit et al. Nor the red layer for that matter.
Look at the descriptions of the chips they perform FTIR on:
Completely different to any of the chips in the Harrit et al paper. Where is this white coating in Harrit et al? Why are they performing FTIR on chips that have no resemblance to chips in Harrit et al?
Truthers are screaming, "look, look, not the same as Millette!", but none of the chips this FTIR was performed on resemble anything in Harrit et al. They are just random samples. The data is worthless because it can't be linked to anything in the Harrit et al paper. Why aren't truthers asking these questions of the FTIR descriptions when it's obvious that they don't represent the same material in Harrit et al?
I'll tell you why, they blindly follow and don't have the ability to perform a simple comparison. The likes of Harrit/Jones/Basile/Farrer consider any material separated by a magnet containing a red layer to be thermite even if it has a white coating (most likely another paint) unless it's been separated by a non-truther. It's all the same to them. They can't see that they have widely different materials.
And that is why Basile will fail even if he sends samples to an independent lab. He won't send samples with the same characteristics as chips a-d in the Harrit et al paper, he'll send all sorts of crap and truthers will then be able to shout, "look, not the same!" again.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Wrong again. Millette definitely did have Tnemec red 99 in his separated pile. The top one is from Millette. The middle is Fig 14 Harrit et al. The bottom is EDX of Tnemec Red 99 primer paint from none other than Jones himself taken from one of his talks no longer available on youtube.
Oh just to be sure here's some more Tnemec Red 99 that Millette has:
Can you find others? It's not hard to pattern match.
Now, can you work out why Millette says that his samples those that match the spectra in chips a-d, which he further analysed, are not Tnemec, but that Tnemec was present in the samples he didn't subject to further analysis?
Does the Tnemec Red 99 spectrum match that of chips a-d? Nope.
Both Harrit and Millette separated Tnemec red primer paint out of the dust. Millette ignores it because the EDX of Tnemec red does not match samples a-d in Harrit et al. Harrit doesn't understand that the samp[le subjected to MEK testing is Tnemed red but that his chips a-d are a different paint.
Millettes data on chips matched to chips a-d show that the material in question is red paint. Chips a-d are red paint. The chips Millette further analyses are red paint. The closest match for both of those sets is Laclade primer paint as has been shown. The fact that Millette doesn't observe Strontium Chromate is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things because he shows that chips a-d in Harrit et al are paint. Doesn't matter which paint just that they are paint. Paint is not thermite hence the thermite nonsense is disproved.
Incidentally it's less likely that Millette will find SrCrO4 because he performed EDX on the chip surface rather than the interior. If you know how strontium chromate works as a corrosion inhibitor and why we are trying to get away from using such coatings then you'll be able to figure out why it's less likely to be found on the surface after considerable time.
Last edited:
You are talking about Jones/Harrit paper in a vanity journal, being peer reviewed? What a fraud.
A vanity journal failed paper, a paper which is nonsense. This is your evidence for thermite, but is evidence Jones and Harrit are not rational.
Why did Jones and Harrit fail to get in a real journal? Because it has a fantasy conclusion exposed when you read the paper.
What is wrong with Millette's paper? Nothing, you have failed to debunk it.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Thanks, I was hoping for MM to answer the question himself, as he is using the claim as a defense, at face value meaning of the word "peer". I want him to defend why the term is appropriate in this claim. I say that it is not, in the necessary meaning for use in validating how scientific a work is.
Millette presented his results on two forensic congresses to experts in forensic science. There could hardly be a better peer review.
BTW, Harrit failed to do that.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
Millette has never had his 2012 9/11 WTC dust red/gray chip study peer-reviewed and published.
Reading to an audience of experts calls for an expectation that his findings will be considered valid.
A proper peer-review determines whether such an expectation has merit.
Without oversight, Millette's audience has no choice but to accept what he tells them.
MM
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Who were Harrit, et al.'s peers who reviewed the paper? I ask because that's where the key issue lies with their paper.
That is a silly statement. You believe Jones and Harrit found thermite, but the paper they produced does not prove they found thermite in WTC dust. In fact, there is no proof they have dust from the WTC event.
911 truth followers, unable to do simple chemistry the reading comprehension, fail to see the fake conclusion is woo, and believe in thermite due to faith. As you put it, Jones/Harrit's audience of 911 truth followers have no choice but to accept what you are told.
No wonder you believe in woo.
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Hi all
I do not know whether this has been discussed elsewhere, but I would appreciate if anyone could correct or confirm my points in the following:
When I read Harrit et al's paper, "Active Thermitic...", it seems quite clear that:
1. They claim that the nanothermite is only to be found in the red layer of the red/grey chips.
2. They also claim that the red layer has some Al and some FeO (amongst other ingredients) BUT in nano size.
3. After heating/igniting whole chips (both red and grey layers), they find iron rich spheres in micro size.
4. They also say that iron rich (micro)spheres in the residue is a clear sign of thermite.
Now, I spot two major flaws here, unless I have overlooked something:
A: How can residue from the whole chip prove anything that only applies to the red layer?
B: How can nano sized particles in the red layer lead to residue (iron rich spheres) of micro size - a thousand times bigger - unless the grey layer is part of the residue, in which case the residue does not apply to the red layer only, and thus does not prove nano thermite?
Please comment.
Kind regards,
Steen
I do not know whether this has been discussed elsewhere, but I would appreciate if anyone could correct or confirm my points in the following:
When I read Harrit et al's paper, "Active Thermitic...", it seems quite clear that:
1. They claim that the nanothermite is only to be found in the red layer of the red/grey chips.
2. They also claim that the red layer has some Al and some FeO (amongst other ingredients) BUT in nano size.
3. After heating/igniting whole chips (both red and grey layers), they find iron rich spheres in micro size.
4. They also say that iron rich (micro)spheres in the residue is a clear sign of thermite.
Now, I spot two major flaws here, unless I have overlooked something:
A: How can residue from the whole chip prove anything that only applies to the red layer?
B: How can nano sized particles in the red layer lead to residue (iron rich spheres) of micro size - a thousand times bigger - unless the grey layer is part of the residue, in which case the residue does not apply to the red layer only, and thus does not prove nano thermite?
Please comment.
Kind regards,
Steen
A: The study was unscientific hogwash, with no attempt at rigour. They chose a method designed to get the results they intended to get.
B: They would probably claim that nano-blobs of iron coalesced into micro-blobs.
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Fair, with a gentle afternoon breeze from 5-15mph, and temperatures in the mid-70s
That is a fair statement.
That is a fair statement.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Long time no see, stranger.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Some very, very sad news. Our friend Ivan Kminek has recently passed away suddenly at the age of 60. Did you know he was also a highly respected science fiction writer? With the disappearance of Oystein and the death of Ivan, this is a very sad year for us. He was such a great guy, and incredibly helpful, brilliant, good-natured, etc. As you know, he recently helped me by cooking up some primer paint on steel at regular burning temperatures, then photographing iron-rich microspheres. His girlfriend of 8 years is utterly devastated. She did not tell me the cause of death but here is an obituary, translated from the Czech:
Ing . Ivan trunk , PhD . (1953 Brno , Prague 2013 ) , macromolecules studied chemistry at the Institute of Chemical Technology in Prague and is employed as a researcher at the Institute of macromolecular chemistry Academy of Sciences in Prague. Not yet published in journals and anthologies , and in 1989 published his novel Utopia , the best version . It belongs to the authors , who maintained close contacts with SF fandom , and published in the official journals as well as in the club fanzine . Twice he won the prize by Karel Capek - 1983 Syntamor interferes with the story , in 1984 with the short story Second entry into the same river . He has written and published numerous short stories in magazines : The second of its kind ( Diary , 1982 , No. 23 - first published story ) affects Syntamor ( Diary , 1983 , No. 14 ) Success (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 3 ) , Pavor nocturnus ( Diary , 1984 , No. 7 ), as I represented our epoch ( Diary , 1984 , No. 3 ) , Live 've been better , sir ! ( Diary , 1984 , No. 14 and VTM , 1985 , No. 12), the man who lagged ( Diary , 1984 , No. 23 ) , O how you becoming concerned (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 9 ) , Dear entry into the same river (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 11 ) , ... and each one will have its universe ( VTM , 1985 , No. 16 ) Where to put it ? ( MF Magazine , 1986 , No. 2) , Tower Building ( Creation , 1986 , No. 43 ) Questionnaire ( Science and Life , 1987 , No. 6) , First Aid ( VTM , 1988 , No. 15 ) Why do people do not have hairy moles ( Science and Life , 1988 , No. 1) , Blind hour ( VTM , 1988 , No. 18 ) Solus ( Icarus , 1991 , 10). Also published in several anthologies. Since the beginning of the 90th years in the writing does not continue.
Kmínková stories are characterized by sophisticated style nehýří ideas or plot, focusing on the problems of ordinary people , often crushed gear totalitarian bureaucratic society . At that often resemble the works of Jan header. Some work , however, differ from the characteristics of such a classic story of "hard SF " Solus , describing the difficult contact with another life form .
Thanks Ivan, you've been a real friend to us. I'm gonna miss you big.
Chris
Ing . Ivan trunk , PhD . (1953 Brno , Prague 2013 ) , macromolecules studied chemistry at the Institute of Chemical Technology in Prague and is employed as a researcher at the Institute of macromolecular chemistry Academy of Sciences in Prague. Not yet published in journals and anthologies , and in 1989 published his novel Utopia , the best version . It belongs to the authors , who maintained close contacts with SF fandom , and published in the official journals as well as in the club fanzine . Twice he won the prize by Karel Capek - 1983 Syntamor interferes with the story , in 1984 with the short story Second entry into the same river . He has written and published numerous short stories in magazines : The second of its kind ( Diary , 1982 , No. 23 - first published story ) affects Syntamor ( Diary , 1983 , No. 14 ) Success (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 3 ) , Pavor nocturnus ( Diary , 1984 , No. 7 ), as I represented our epoch ( Diary , 1984 , No. 3 ) , Live 've been better , sir ! ( Diary , 1984 , No. 14 and VTM , 1985 , No. 12), the man who lagged ( Diary , 1984 , No. 23 ) , O how you becoming concerned (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 9 ) , Dear entry into the same river (AZ magazine , 1984 , No. 11 ) , ... and each one will have its universe ( VTM , 1985 , No. 16 ) Where to put it ? ( MF Magazine , 1986 , No. 2) , Tower Building ( Creation , 1986 , No. 43 ) Questionnaire ( Science and Life , 1987 , No. 6) , First Aid ( VTM , 1988 , No. 15 ) Why do people do not have hairy moles ( Science and Life , 1988 , No. 1) , Blind hour ( VTM , 1988 , No. 18 ) Solus ( Icarus , 1991 , 10). Also published in several anthologies. Since the beginning of the 90th years in the writing does not continue.
Kmínková stories are characterized by sophisticated style nehýří ideas or plot, focusing on the problems of ordinary people , often crushed gear totalitarian bureaucratic society . At that often resemble the works of Jan header. Some work , however, differ from the characteristics of such a classic story of "hard SF " Solus , describing the difficult contact with another life form .
Thanks Ivan, you've been a real friend to us. I'm gonna miss you big.
Chris
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
My heart goes out to his family and friends.
I don't know what else to say. RIP
I don't know what else to say. RIP
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Rest in peace, Ivan. Your intellect and humor will be missed. My heart also goes out to your friends and family.