It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 20
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Here is more underlying problems with the Harrit paper.



benthamopen.com...

Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.


What paint samples? Why would you assume the red chips could only be paint, or thermite? Why not pulverized plastic, harden epoxy, or rust? Or some other material?

And the study never made an effort to define what paint and primer was used at the WTC? Where did Harrit explain what constitutes normal Paint? Is it Enamel paint? Latex paint? Acrylic paint? Alkyd coatings? Polyurethane coatings?

Not only could I not fine what type of paint samples were used, but a discussion why they where chosen.

So with “Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?”, what does that even mean?

But more to the point, we don’t care about ordinary paint? We care about the paint used at the WTC. Is that a false statement. So, why does Harrit not define what paint was used at the WTC? And why does Harrit not specifically use samples of paint used at the WTC? Because the paper is pseudoscience


Remember these two lines:

“Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame.“

And

“This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.”

The WTC building had paint on them. The WTC collapse produced paint dust. There was paint in the WTC dust, but none of the red chips in the dust from Harrit’s sample made fragile ash? How in the hell did every one of his red chips not only fail to make fragile ash, but “This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.” How did WTC samples comprised of who knows what, have every red chip burn the same?

Over 1,400,000 tons of buildings were reduced to rubble on 9/11, with who knows what was pulverized to dust, and made up the WTC dust? Yet, not one of Harrit’s red chips acted like “ordinary paint” , and produced the same energy by exothermic reaction? That it total BS

And, why would there be thermite dust? The reaction is self sustaining? What would stop thermite charges from burning to produce a detectable amount of thermite in the dust from the collapse of over 1,400,000 tons of buildings?



edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added last paragraph

edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed more




posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Let’s recap....

Harrit’s paper was published in a pay to play journal.

Harrit’s paper was unethically published as peer reviewed with the referee bypassed. And at least one of the persons that was part of the paper’s peer review was consulted while the paper was written.

Harrit’s work never completed the discovery process. His lab results and conclusions were never verified by independent labs. He never opened the paper up to public comments.

The paper claims the red chips cannot be “ordinary paint” which is meaningless. I could not find what type of paint Harrit tested and why? And I found no evidence Harrit tried to explain what paints and primers were used at the WTC. I could not find any efforts by Harrit to ensure his control paint samples were representative of what was used at the WTC.

It is total BS that his samples, composed of who knows what from the dust created by the collapse of over 1,400,000 tons of buildings on 9/11, had every red chip act the exact same way, and each of his red chips was proof of “thermite”.

The only thing his analysis by exothermic reaction shows, is some how all his red chips burned with the same energy. Harrit made no effort to create control samples from chemicals and paints specificly used to build the WTC, and compare those results to the red chips.

Harrit claims thermite from exothermic reactions that are common to many materials. I made the claim that saying something was thermite by an exothermic reaction is like a person believing they have cancer because of back pain. Or because there are wheel tracks on a dirt road, you think it had to be a Yugo?

Harrit has made no effort to publish the results of trying to ignite his WTC samples in an inert atmosphere to test for truly thermite type reactions. The first thing most analysts would probably do for a go / no go test.

Which leads us to why Chris Mohr and Skeptics international pushed for an independent analysis of WTC dust that resulted in....




WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Posted by chrismohr
www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim


And you improperly quoted the above here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And left out this part below in true conspiracist’s fashion to trample on context...


It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.


You ignoring from above....

“The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite”

You go on to create a false argument by stating


not sure why his doubting their conclusions when the red/grey chips have the same material composition of thermite and red/grey chips reacted upon when heated.


Especially when the red / grey chips are comprised with the same materials found in building materials, paint, and primers? Imagine building materials, paint, and primer found in building dust. But not one of Harrits red chips were paint? What are the odds?





edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added last paragraph

edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed more



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
neutronflux He did you just don't understand what he's saying.

Unrelated experiment
Royal Society of Chemistry homepage

The thermite reaction
Demonstration

This demonstration shows the highly exothermic reaction between aluminium and iron(III) oxide that produces molten iron. This is a competition reaction, showing aluminium to be a more reactive metal than iron. A redox reaction takes place.

www.rsc.org...



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
neutronflux Why not pulverized plastic, harden epoxy, or rust? Or some other material? The chemical composition of the red/grey chip, I would think had to be factored into this! And if was something else the skeptics would have written about this by now.

Wrong Harrit collected samples of the primer paint used and did an analysis on it. The primer paint samples did not have the same chemical composition as the red-grey chips and did not react at 430c.

Primer paint is ordinary paint, it not some super duper paint that costs a fortune to purchase. NIST listed the primer paint used this not in dispute. If you think they used different types of primer paints you have to provide evidence for this conclusion.
edit on 15-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

What do you not understand about?



www.internationalskeptics.com...

However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim



What additional analytical results has Harrit published to address the legitimate statement:



It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips a



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
neutronflux Nasa exposed this event for what it really is anyway. When images were taken hot spots showed up in excess of 1300c on Sep 16th and could have been hotter on Sep 11th. This exposed the conspiracy. The dust samples just further exposed the conspiracy. People are just dumb to notice these things and ask serious questions how that possible. Then you got the cleanup crews doing interviews saying they saw molten steel, melted steel and molten Iron. Ignored statements that are true and never investigated honestly by NIST.
edit on 15-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

Please cite a source that Harrit outlines the paints and primers used at the WTC, and used those as control samples.

Again, what don’t you get about:



www.internationalskeptics.com...

However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.


Please show where Harrit published new results to address the legitimate “not thermite“, and “they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips“



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
neutronflux It seems to me that the ball is now in their court ( wrong it up to the debunkers to prove Harrit claims are incorrect) The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties ( so he agrees the reaction is similar to thermite?) but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite ( why is not considered as a possibility Harrit is right)



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

One


neutronflux Nasa exposed this event for what it really is anyway. When images were taken hot spots showed up in excess of 1300c on Sep 16th and could have been hotter on Sep 11th


Cite a source.

Two, thermite has a self sustaining reaction. What would make the fantasy of thermite stop reacting on 9/11, then be triggered again to make the pile hotter on 9-16?

If the fantasy thermite was present, it would have been consumed in seconds when triggered. Was there any evidence thermite still sparking five minutes after the collapse of the WTC. Why would it be burning 5 days latter to make the pile hot?

Three, what does this have to do with Harrit never proved thermite reactions in his dust?



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
neutronflux pubs.usgs.gov...

Unreacted thermite will keep igniting if exposed to heat. That what Harrit claims the red/grey chips are unreacted thermiite that has not ignited.

There simply no explanation why there be heat in excess of 1300c 5 days after 9/11 when firemen were using water to cool everything down so they could work safely. There has to be a reason for why the temperatures are this extreme.



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux It seems to me that the ball is now in their court ( wrong it up to the debunkers to prove Harrit claims are incorrect) The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties ( so he agrees the reaction is similar to thermite?) but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite ( why is not considered as a possibility Harrit is right)


How can you spin such blatant falsehoods?

The actual quote...



www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is Jim Millette's latest reply to the new 9/11 Truth chant that "he didn't do DSC so his testing is invalid":

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim


“ The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.”

One, you cannot rewrite a quote to change it like you want.

Two, the only subject in the quote above is Harrit’s research, and what is believed by the researcher.

Three, at no point are debunkers mentioned or a subject of Jim’s.

This was an epic failure by you.

edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux pubs.usgs.gov...

Unreacted thermite will keep igniting if exposed to heat. That what Harrit claims the red/grey chips are unreacted thermiite that has not ignited.

There simply no explanation why there be heat in excess of 1300c 5 days after 9/11 when firemen were using water to cool everything down so they could work safely. There has to be a reason for why the temperatures are this extreme.


You didn’t answer the question.

Why would it stop burning once ignited.

After the collapse, how was thermite ignited?



www.unitednuclear.com...

Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame.



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
neutronflux He just will not accept the possibility its nano-thermite even though he admits the red/grey chips display all the characteristics of a thermite reaction. Maybe he just doesn't want to accept Harrit because it doesn't confirm the official narrative of how the building collapsed?



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You


so he agrees the reaction is similar to thermite?


Why would Jim Millette believe that? When he clearly states:


However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite.
www.internationalskeptics.com...


What do you not get about “were not thermite or nano-thermite”?
edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
neutronflux Thermite reacts to heat and obviously heat doesn't suddenly just disappear when the building collapsed. What Nasa showed through 5 days after 9/11 was the heat in some areas was 1300c and higher/ Office fires would never get that hot and especially not 5 days later.



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux He just will not accept the possibility its nano-thermite even though he admits the red/grey chips display all the characteristics of a thermite reaction. Maybe he just doesn't want to accept Harrit because it doesn't confirm the official narrative of how the building collapsed?


Again, what do you not get by Jim Millette stating:


However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite.
www.internationalskeptics.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
neutronflux additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. What are they then you can't just say this and think that works scientifically

He also says this. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. Is he not confirming Harrit findings here. You can't rule out its not thermite if he is why is he doing that a bias?
edit on 15-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesushere
neutronflux Thermite reacts to heat and obviously heat doesn't suddenly just disappear when the building collapsed. What Nasa showed through 5 days after 9/11 was the heat in some areas was 1300c and higher/ Office fires would never get that hot and especially not 5 days later.


So, 1300c is around 2400 Fahrenheit?
What don’t you get about”Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame. ”

How many false arguments are you going to blatantly try to spin. It’s very ridiculous...,
edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
neutronflux red/grey chips experienced an exothermic reaction at very low temperatures 430c it one of the unusual properties Harrit noted in his study and why he felt this substance was manufactured in a lab. The nanosize of the particles also unusual, you can only see them using an electron microscope. He discussed in his paper this could have gel on or sprayed onto the steel and other metals.
edit on 15-8-2018 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2018 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jesushere

You


neutronflux additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. What are they then you can't just say this and think that works scientifically


Jim Millette's
www.internationalskeptics.com...


The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite.

Harrit never conducted a valid experiment to determine if the red chips were thermite.

More from Jim, whole quote.


It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.


Harrit made the claim thermite, he failed to develope a test that would prove thermite, and remove the possible it might be other material with the same elements. Showing something exothermic which is a propert of both thermite and non-thermite only show it might be thermite or it might not be thermite? That is why trying to ignite the dust in an inert atmosphere is so important.

It is up to Harrit to construct an experiment that can prove the red chips are thermite, and the experiment will eliminate the possibility it’s just material with similar elements. We in the skeptic world are waiting on the new results that have not yet been published.
edit on 15-8-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join