9/11 Conspiracy

[Gamolon]

They do not "almost exactly match", Gamster! There are MAJOR differences between Fig.(14)'s trace amounts of zinc and chromium and no magnesium whatsoever vs. the paint chip's prominent spikes in all three of those elements (with its second spike of zinc nearly shooting off the chart).

How's about a little honesty from you for a change?

They don't?

Fig 14 from Harrit's paper. Notice they fail to label the the spike between Zn and Al as being Mg (I thought you said there was no magnesium present Capstone?). They also failed to label the spike before the first Ca as K. How can such a prominent scientific paper leave out such details? These "left out details" lead people like you to make statements such as "There was no magnesium present" when clearly there was.


Jones' slide showing what he says is paint.


What does each spectrum have in common below was taken from Oystein s 9 11 debates Steven Jones proves primer paint not thermite

• 0.28keV: both have a high peak for C
• 0.54keV: both have a high peak for O
• 0.71keV: both have a medium peak for Fe
• 1.02keV: both have a small to medium peak for Zn
• 1.25keV: both have a small peak for Mg
• 1.49keV: both have a medium peak for Al
• 1.74keV: both have a medium to high peak for Si
• 2.31keV: both have a small to medium peak for S
• 3.31keV: both have a small peak for K
• 3.69keV: both have a high peak; for sample a-d it is labelled "Ca", for the primer paint it is labled "C". I propose that one of the two lables is in error. Should be Ca in either place[4]
• 4.01keV: both have a small to medium peak for Ca
• 5.41keV: both have a small peak for Cr
• 5.95keV: both have a small peak for Cr
• 6.40keV: both have a high peak for Fe
• 7.06keV: both have a small peak for Fe
• 8.64keV: both have a small peak for Zn

How about a little honesty from YOU for a change.

Is the red layer from Fig. 14 below from Harrit's paper...


The same material shown below for samples a through d in Fig. 7 of Harrit's paper?


Yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.

Unfortunately for you, there is no "guessing".

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

There is not one sentence in Harrit's paper that speaks about different chips. The paper clearly says that ALL chips extracted and tested from the four samples are unreacted thermitic material. Please quote any section of the paper that gives any impression to the reader that ANY of the red/gray chips, if tested, will turn out to be anything else. Even the damn conclusion at the end of the paper states that all chips they found were unreacted thermitic material. Not "a few chips". Not "some chips". Not "a number of chips". It says "of the red/gray chips we discovered".

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

So if the DSC test is all important, why was it left out? They clearly state that tested chips from all four samples and that the are thermitic material. Yet you want to "guess" that they left out the one sample because it didn't ignite?

 

[Capstone]

Fig 14 from Harrit's paper. Notice they fail to label the the spike between Zn and Al as being Mg (I thought you said there was no magnesium present Capstone?).They also failed to label the spike before the first Ca as K. How can such a prominent scientific paper leave out such details? These "left out details" lead people like you to make statements such as "There was no magnesium present" when clearly there was.

If, as appears might be the case, the small unlabeled spike between the Zn and Al spikes in Fig.(14) is magnesium, then I was wrong to say there was none present in the MEK test results. In such case, I'd also concede the point that I may have been misled, not only by the Harrit group's failure to report on all of the elements in common with primer paint, but also by a number of Harrit's subsequent statements. However, not being familiar with all of the accepted M.O.'s in testing and reporting, I'm not prepared to condemn Harrit's group for not labeling blips that may have been small enough to dismiss as "noise" or tiny traces of primer paint contamination, in which case both the findings reported in Fig.(14) and Harrit's later statements regarding the absence of Mg would be vindicated.

All of that said, neither the presence of primer paint elements in Fig.(14) nor its consequent similarities (again, point conceded) to the known paint chip's elemental composition disproves (or really even addresses) Harrit's explanation that the MEK results were laden with contamination (possibly including that of primer paint) out of necessity, because the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface. This explanation also accounts perfectly well for the apparent differences between the XEDS results (which examined cross sections of cleanly broken chips) and those of the MEK test (which examined the unbroken surface and consequently all of its contaminants).

Most importantly, though, the MEK results could be wholly disregarded and the presence of elemental aluminum would still be indirectly proven in the reactivity shown by the DSC results; unless, of course, you're suggesting that primer paint could undergo a thermitic-like response to temperatures of around 430° C, complete with the production of the iron-rich material that best explains the many iron microspheres observed in the WTC dust (and not just in the Harrit group's study).

Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? ...

Well, because A) I'm not a qualified commentator on the Harrit group's field(s) of expertise, and B) I'm not privy to the reasoning behind the decision to report the DSC results from only 3 of the 4 samples. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid to admit such things.

...Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.

Unfortunately for you, there is no "guessing".

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

There is not one sentence in Harrit's paper that speaks about different chips. The paper clearly says that ALL chips extracted and tested from the four samples are unreacted thermitic material. Please quote any section of the paper that gives any impression to the reader that ANY of the red/gray chips, if tested, will turn out to be anything else. Even the damn conclusion at the end of the paper states that all chips they found were unreacted thermitic material. Not "a few chips". Not "some chips". Not "a number of chips". It says "of the red/gray chips we discovered".

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

So if the DSC test is all important, why was it left out? They clearly state that tested chips from all four samples and that the are thermitic material. Yet you want to "guess" that they left out the one sample because it didn't ignite?

Look, I've already pointed out how your forced interpretation of the "all of them" phrase in the case of the reported DSC results ignores the context in which it was used, namely with direct regard to the reported DSC results. I've also steered you to one of Harrit's public admissions that dead chips had indeed been found in the samples (which would seem to entail their failure to ignite during heat testing, since that's the only definitive way to determine whether a given chip is dead or alive). These observations aren't trivial, Gams, which raises the question as to why you've failed as yet to directly refute either one of them, despite your continued appeal to what may well be a couple of erroneously-interpreted/cherry-picked phrases from the paper. If you're not going to bother with my answers to your questions, then our conversation here will likely never transcend the realm of pointlessness.

 

[Gamolon]

Fig 14 from Harrit's paper. Notice they fail to label the the spike between Zn and Al as being Mg (I thought you said there was no magnesium present Capstone?).They also failed to label the spike before the first Ca as K. How can such a prominent scientific paper leave out such details? These "left out details" lead people like you to make statements such as "There was no magnesium present" when clearly there was.

If, as appears might be the case, the small unlabeled spike between the Zn and Al spikes in Fig.(14) is magnesium, then I was wrong to say there was none present in the MEK test results. In such case, I'd also concede the point that I may have been misled, not only by the Harrit group's failure to report on all of the elements in common with primer paint, but also by a number of Harrit's subsequent statements. However, not being familiar with all of the accepted M.O.'s in testing and reporting, I'm not prepared to condemn Harrit's group for not labeling blips that may have been small enough to dismiss as "noise" or tiny traces of primer paint contamination, in which case both the findings reported in Fig.(14) and Harrit's later statements regarding the absence of Mg would be vindicated.

If the "small blips" in Fig. 14 were "contamination" within the thermite, then why does Jones consider his slide to be actual primer paint and not the same "thermite with primer paint contamination"? Ridiculous. And it's not just the "non-labeling" of small peaks. It's the paper as a whole.

All of that said, neither the presence of primer paint elements in Fig.(14) nor its consequent similarities (again, point conceded) to the known paint chip's elemental composition disproves (or really even addresses) Harrit's explanation that the MEK results were laden with contamination (possibly including that of primer paint) out of necessity,

Possibly?! You mean it wasn't a priority to determine if what he had was actual primer paint or contaminated thermite?! You've got to be kidding me.

because the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface. This explanation also accounts perfectly well for the apparent differences between the XEDS results (which examined cross sections of cleanly broken chips) and those of the MEK test (which examined the unbroken surface and consequently all of its contaminants).

Which explanation? Can you point me to the part in the paper that shows it was contamination? Or are you "guessing" again?

Most importantly, though, the MEK results could be wholly disregarded and the presence of elemental aluminum would still be indirectly proven in the reactivity shown by the DSC results; unless, of course, you're suggesting that primer paint could undergo a thermitic-like response to temperatures of around 430° C, complete with the production of the iron-rich material that best explains the many iron microspheres observed in the WTC dust (and not just in the Harrit group's study).

What was the gray layer Capstone? What if it was primer paint that was contaminated?

You know what I find mysterious? The fact that people in Harrit's group later ADMITTED they had red primer paint chips yet decided to use tabulated resistivity results from an outside source instead of testing the damn primer paint chips they had in their midst. Why did they not try and ignite primer paint chips that they had from the dust samples instead of using OTHER primer paint samples. What a joke.

Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? ...

Well, because A) I'm not a qualified commentator on the Harrit group's field(s) of expertise, and B) I'm not privy to the reasoning behind the decision to report the DSC results from only 3 of the 4 samples. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid to admit such things.

What happened to the confidence you exuded in the post below just a short while ago Capstone?

Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.

Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"? Do these admissions somehow exonerate you from providing fully supported answers to my questions regarding Harrit's paper going forward? The problem is it's all in the paper Capstone. You provided nothing but what you "think" the paper is saying and not "what" the paper is actually saying.

...Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.

Unfortunately for you, there is no "guessing".

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

There is not one sentence in Harrit's paper that speaks about different chips. The paper clearly says that ALL chips extracted and tested from the four samples are unreacted thermitic material. Please quote any section of the paper that gives any impression to the reader that ANY of the red/gray chips, if tested, will turn out to be anything else. Even the damn conclusion at the end of the paper states that all chips they found were unreacted thermitic material. Not "a few chips". Not "some chips". Not "a number of chips". It says "of the red/gray chips we discovered".

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

So if the DSC test is all important, why was it left out? They clearly state that tested chips from all four samples and that the are thermitic material. Yet you want to "guess" that they left out the one sample because it didn't ignite?

Look, I've already pointed out how your forced interpretation of the "all of them" phrase in the case the reported DSC results ignores the context in which it was used, namely with direct regard to the reported DSC results.

You've done nothing of the sort. My interpretation is directly from the paper. There is no other interpretation. I've shown you many instances where Harrit's paper refers to "THE chips". There is no indication of other types of red chips in the paper.

I've also steered you to one of Harrit's public admissions that dead chips had indeed been found in the samples (which would seem to entail their failure to ignite during heat testing, since that's the only definitive way to determine whether a given chip is dead or alive).

Talk about forced interpretation! Can you show me in the paper where they say anything about dead or active chips? No? Didn't think so. I can show you ALL kinds of quotes from the paper that show that they think ALL the red chips they extracted from the dust pile were active thermite.

These observations aren't trivial, Gams, which raises the question as to why you've failed as yet to directly refute either one of them, despite your continued appeal to what may well be a couple of erroneously-interpreted/cherry-picked phrases from the paper. If you're not going to bother with my answers to your questions, then our conversation here will likely never transcend the realm of pointlessness.

I have addressed them. The paper says what it says. Look back through your quotes and see how many times you assume what they are trying to say. I am providing you quotes from the paper while you sit there and assume.

 

[Capstone]

If the "small blips" in Fig. 14 were "contamination" within the thermite, then why does Jones consider his slide to be actual primer paint and not the same "thermite with primer paint contamination"?...

Have you bothered to watch any of the videos you've posted as evidence of some of the wrongheaded conclusions you've been pushing in here?

In Jones's own words from the video you posted (starting at 1:16:30): "The behavior when we ignite this stuff [...] and when we treat it with paint solvent, these are entirely different behaviors between the primer paint and the red chips." He goes on in some detail from there. Compositional analysis is only 1/3 of the picture. The primer paint goes limp in solvent, whereas the red-gray chips retain their hardness; and most importantly of all, the primer paint doesn't react like an incendiary when exposed to the right temperature range.

Possibly?! You mean it wasn't a priority to determine if what he had was actual primer paint or contaminated thermite?! You've got to be kidding me.

Since the red-gray chips apparently didn't behave like paint chips in the solvent, and the nature of the MEK test was such that some level of surface contamination was to be expected, I imagine the Harrit group felt sufficiently comfortable in the knowledge that what they'd tested and reported on in that particular instance wasn't a paint chip.

From the paper:

"The initial objective [of the MEK test] was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK. It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess
whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form." (emphasis mine)

The independent confirmation of elemental aluminum in the red layer was a nice unexpected perk. It's always good to have as many different affirmations as possible for X-hypothesis, after all; but since elemental Al would later be proven by implication in the DSC results, the veracity of the paper's chief conclusion doesn't stand or fall on the strengths/weaknesses of the solvent test.

Which explanation? ...

That the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface.

Here's Harrit from the video Daws alluded to earlier as "meaningless minutia" (starting at 4:16):

"Now, in the experiment where we had to put the chip into methyl ethyl ketone, we could not break it, of course. So, [...] it shows all the contamination from the rest of the building. [...] This zinc-chromate could very well be primer paint sticking on the outside of the red-gray chips. The point is: when you break the chip, where you get a clean cut, there's no zinc-chromate." (emphasis mine)

...Can you point me to the part in the paper that shows it was contamination? Or are you "guessing" again?

As I've already posted, the paper states:

"XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material."

Granted, this in itself doesn't prove that surface contamination was present, but when viewed in light of the XEDS analyses of clean-cut cross sections, it's a reasonable suggestion that's empirically supported by other results listed in the paper.

What was the gray layer Capstone? What if it was primer paint that was contaminated?

The gray layers were also examined via the XEDS's 'clean-cut' methodology, Smartass.

From the paper:

"The four spectra in Fig.(6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon."

That's not a recipe for primer paint.

...You know what I find mysterious? The fact that people in Harrit's group later ADMITTED they had red primer paint chips yet decided to use tabulated resistivity results from an outside source instead of testing the damn primer paint chips they had in their midst. Why did they not try and ignite primer paint chips that they had from the dust samples instead of using OTHER primer paint samples. What a joke.

Before commenting on it, I'd like to see the source of that charge, because it seems pretty likely to me that such a confession on the part of anyone in Harrit's group would have been accompanied by an explanation.

What happened to the confidence you exuded in the post below just a short while ago Capstone? [...] Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"?...

Oh, don't get me wrong! I have the utmost confidence in my capacities to defend Harrit's paper and to highlight the deficiencies of the arguments that have been brought against it (beyond the peer-reviewed arena, of course) over the years. The internet and a naturally analytical mind are a powerful twosome. Don't mistake my personal honesty as a sign of weakness, Gams.

...Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"? Do these admissions somehow exonerate you from providing fully supported answers to my questions regarding Harrit's paper going forward? ...

Well, they were true before I admitted them in this thread, and they certainly hadn't prevented me from addressing/refuting any issue you'd raised up to that point. So, no worries, I'll continue to back up my guesses with quotes from the paper and/or statements made by members of the Harrit group outside of the paper (I've found a few of the videos you posted to be pretty helpful in that regard, BTW).

...The problem is it's all in the paper Capstone. You provided nothing but what you "think" the paper is saying and not "what" the paper is actually saying.

Bunk.

You're the one who's tried to impose an unreasonable restriction on the way a couple of cherry-picked phrases can be interpreted, despite my appeal to Harrit's explanations (outside of the paper) which fully justify my preferred interpretations of those phrases. Just because you claim to know what Harrit et al meant ... doesn't mean you actually know any such thing.

...My interpretation is directly from the paper. ...

So are mine. The difference is that I've appealed to Harrit's statements outside of the paper to support mine, while you've provided nothing more than your bull-headed insistence that you're right and I'm wrong (not a very compelling argument, BTW).

...There is no other interpretation. I've shown you many instances where Harrit's paper refers to "THE chips". There is no indication of other types of red chips in the paper.

And I suggest, that in each and every one of those instances, "THE chips" to which he referred should be understood in the individual contexts in which that common phrase was used (I.E. "the chips" analyzed via the XEDS refer only to the chips so analyzed and reported on, ETC.). Unlike yours, there's really nothing controversial about my preferred interpretation.

...I can show you ALL kinds of quotes from the paper that show that they think ALL the red chips they extracted from the dust pile were active thermite. ...

Only if we're to accept the narrow interpretations you've been trying (and failing) both to pin on the paper's writers and to force on the paper's readers.

Now, go on and list ALL of those quotes in order, so I can shoot down your narrow-minded takes one at a time.

...I have addressed them. The paper says what it says. Look back through your quotes and see how many times you assume what they are trying to say. I am providing you quotes from the paper while you sit there and assume.

It seems to me that you're the one assuming that your narrow interpretation applies irrespective of context throughout the paper. Since when does language work that way for any comprehensive composition, scientific or otherwise?!

Let's look at the abstract again (I've emphasized the areas you'd previously highlighted in red):

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. ..."

This has no bearing on the question as to whether or not all of the "distinctive red/gray chips" collected would be tested and reported on in the paper. To assume other wise would be just that - an assumption.

"Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. ..."

Again, the language is ambiguous enough to account for any red/gray chips discovered during the examination of the dust samples but not further tested or more extensively reported on later in the paper.

"These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. ..."

Here the phrase, "these red/gray chips", is obviously in reference to those r/g chips that were recovered from the four different samples and reported as having "marked similarities". It doesn't justify the assumption that every one of those chips would be further tested and/or more extensively reported on later in the paper.

"One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

There again, the phrase "these chips" should be taken in the context it was used, specifically following the generalized description of DSC testing results.

Next...

 

[Gamolon]

...I can show you ALL kinds of quotes from the paper that show that they think ALL the red chips they extracted from the dust pile were active thermite. ...

Only if we're to accept the narrow interpretations you've been trying (and failing) both to pin on the paper's writers and to force on the paper's readers.

Now, go on and list ALL of those quotes in order, so I can shoot down your narrow-minded takes one at a time.

No problem, I'll do just that. See below.

Abstract from the paper:

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center.

So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips.

Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples.

These red/gray chips referring to the "distinctive" red/gray chips mentioned previously. No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips yet.

One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy

these chips still referring to the generic, one type of "distinctive" red/gray chips.

dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.

The red material refers to the red/layer of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips. Still nothing mentioned about any other type of red/gray chip.

Separation
of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring

the chips, yet again, still refer to the generic, single type of "distinctive" red/gray chip they first mentioned.

at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.

Interesting. The chips ignite FAR below the normal ignition of for conventional thermite, yet he classifies it as thermite.

Numerous iron-rich
spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips.

these peculiar red/gray chips still refer to the generic "red/gray chips, At this point, you want us to believe that there are other types of red/gray chips.

The red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

these chips still referring to the "distinctive" chips they discovered.

So tell me Capstone, just reading the abstract so far and using the paper as your only basis to form an opinion, how does anyone reading Harrit's paper get any other impression other than any red/gray chip extracted from the four piles of dust using a magnet will be anything BUT active thermite?

You see, Harrit's paper has a major problem. It's the same problem I have been trying to point out to you. His paper clearly tries to make the point that all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet are thermtic material. So far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

So now they go on to prove how they came to the conclusion that the red/layer of these chips is active thermitic material. My next post will be about that.

 

[Gamolon]

So now, anyone reading the abstract in Harrit's paper gets the idea that they found active thermitic material in the form of red/gray chips. As of yet, there is no indication of any other type of red/gray chip.

Just a thought. What if I am a scientist (or anyone for that matter) and I want to replicate his paper? Keep that in mind as we go forward.

So I have a pile of WTC dust and I want to replicate Harrit's findings. What is my first step? Extraction of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips from the dust? How does one do that? Well, it's in the paper!

The
red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the
dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was
used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The
chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to
their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major
dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).
Samples of WTC dust from these and other collectors have
been sent directly from collectors to various scientists (including
some not on this research team) who have also found
such red/gray chips in the dust from the World Trade Center
destruction.

So according to Harrit's paper, the chips or the red/gray chips, are attracted to a magnet and can be extracted from the pile/s using said magnet. So now I have a question. Is your thinking that at this step of the paper, Harrit and his group unknowingly extracted various types of red/gray chips (active, dead, primer paint, etc.) to the magnet?

 

[Gamolon]

So now, following the paper, I have extracted red/gray chips from my pile of WTC dust using a magnet. According to your logic, I, just like Harrit, UNKNOWINGLY attracted different kinds of red/gray chips with my magnet. Different chips such as active thermite, dead thermite, red primer paint, etc. I say UNKNOWINGLY because thus far, I have no indication that there are different types of "distinctive" red/gray chips, nor is there any steps thus far that explain HOW to separate the unwanted red/gray chips from the active thermtic red/gray chips. I only have the clarification within the abstract. So let's read a bit further in the paper.

RESULTS
1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips
Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust samples collected.
An analysis of the chips was performed to assess the
similarity of the chips and to determine the chemistry and
materials that make up the chips. Fig. (2) displays photomicrographs
of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust
samples. Note the scale marker in each image as they were
acquired at different magnifications. At approximately
2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger
chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7
mg. All of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a
red layer and were attracted by a magnet.

So, ALL of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. So now we have further proof of the chips used in the study. So I look at my pile of red/gray chips that I extracted with a magnet (which according to contains active, dead, red primer paint, etc.) and think I have the same pile of extracted chips that Harrit and his group tested.

With me so far?

Question. In Fig. (2), since they are supposedly publishing information on active thermtic chips ONLY, how did they determine at this point (1. Charatcterization of the Red/Gray Chips) in the paper that chips (a) thru (d) were active thermitic material?

 

[Gamolon]

...You know what I find mysterious? The fact that people in Harrit's group later ADMITTED they had red primer paint chips yet decided to use tabulated resistivity results from an outside source instead of testing the damn primer paint chips they had in their midst. Why did they not try and ignite primer paint chips that they had from the dust samples instead of using OTHER primer paint samples. What a joke.

Before commenting on it, I'd like to see the source of that charge, because it seems pretty likely to me that such a confession on the part of anyone in Harrit's group would have been accompanied by an explanation.

No problem.

Below is a quote regarding what Mark Basile says about red/gray paint chips.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [8] Mark Basile: 9/11 Free Fall: Mark Basile and WTC dust. Radio talkshow, broadcast by No Lies Radio on December 27 2012.: 9 11 Free Fall Mark Basile and WTC dust

Mark Basile

Mark Basile is a chemical engineer who first approached Steven Jones about the alleged thermitic nature of the red-gray chips in december 2007, and was in due course supplied with a sample of WTC from one of the sources (Janette MacKinlay) which he did some tests on. I commented some of his results elsewhere in my blog

As Basile is currently proposing yet another lab study of the dust, he was recently (december 2012) interviewed by the radio talkshow "9/11 Free Fall Radio" (Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele) on No Lies Radio [8]. Some passages transcribed - first one starting at the 27:26 minutes mark:

There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear! Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I'm finding, but that doesn't mean they all are. And they are not all, because […?...] pulled out ones where I've seen the reaction, I've seen the product, so I know you're in there. But there is also a lot of primer paint chips in there, too.
He even goes on to speculate about the work of Steven Jones (28:28 minutes):

I think some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at were definitely, you know, primer paint chips, too, so not everything in there was necessarily nano-thermite chips.
(I wonder what Jones, Harrit etc. have to say on this?)

Another quote regarding the known presence of red/gray paint chips.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [7] Chris Mohr: A forum post. Posted at the JREF forum on January 10 2013. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16: WTC Dust Study Feb 29 2012 by Dr. James Millette - Page 30 - International Skeptics Forum

Kevin Ryan

Prior to commissioning the James Millette study, Colorado-based journalist Chris Mohr was in conversation with Harrit's co-author Kevin Ryan. In those exchanges, Ryan acknowledged that there are paint chips among the red-gray chips, as Mohr relates on the JREF forum [7]:

BTW in support of what MM said, when Kevin Ryan was still talking to me, he said that he has in his possession both red-grey paint chips and red-grey thermitic chips, "and I can tell you they are not the same." He claimed that they look different to the eye, but more importantly, that the thermitic chips have an exothermic quality that the paint chips don't. Unfortunately, he refused to release the samples to me or Millette, and our personal connection broke down around that time. I was never able to get samples of these different kinds of chips, or more info about them in relation to the Bentham paper. Nor did I know at that time about the two different types of paint primer in use at WTC. So MM is right that the Bentham authors knew there were paint chips, but his noncooperation has made it impossible to know what he actually has. In the meantime, however, the Millette study has not been credibly refuted when it comes to the question of which chips he tested. Many 9/11 Truth people seem to agree that his methodology in finding the correct chips was sound.
Red font marking added by me to highlight the key statement. So the question is: Howdo the acknowledged paint chip look different? I note that there is again no mention of magnetic properties, which would in this case seem to indicate that magnetic attraction isnot a key difference.

And another quote about different kinds of red/gray chips including primer paint.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [6] Frank M. Legge: Reply to a question. Posted at amazon.org as a comment to a Customer Review on December 25 2012. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16: Amazon.com Alan S. Glassman pleromata s review of Where Did the Towers Go Evidence of Direc...

Frank Legge

Frank Legge recently engaged in an online debate with Ronald Wieck and others in the comments section of an Amazon customer review [6]. Note that he incorrectly addressed "Ronald and Millette", it should have been "Ronald and Erich", as Millette didn't participate in that exchange. To make reading easier, I'll format the questions quoted from Ronald's previous post blue, Legge's own words purple:

Ronald and Millette

"you write "Millette's ... carefully selected some paint fragments on which to perform his analysis. He did not study the chips described in the Active Thermitic Materials paper."

Do I understand you correctly when I construe your words to imply
1. that there are different kinds of red-gray chips, i.e. different materials? Such that some may represent thermitic incendiaries/explosives, some may perhaps represent paint, and some may perhaps represent other mundane or not so mundane things?"

Of course!

"2. that it is possible to select chips and pick out those that are not thermitic?"

Of course

"3. that, as a corrolary to 2., it would be possible to select thermitic chips from a mix of various kinds of red-gray chips?"

Of course.

"If that is so, can you provide objective, unambiguous and non-destructive, criteria by which to distinguish and separate thermitic chips from the dust? I believe this would be a great help for future studies, such as the one contemplated by Mark Basile (http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/proposal/index.htm) right now? "

Of course. Read the Active Thermitic Materials paper. It is all set out there.
The questions don't mention the magnetic separation of red-gray chips. However, since Legge is very clear that "t is all set out [in the Active Thermitic Materials paper]", these words must be construed as meaning that ALL red-gray chips selected with a magnet are thermitic.

Now, here is proof that they never tested the KNOWN red/gray paint chips.

Here is a quote with the source from Harrit's paper regarding the resistivity tests. Why, if they had red/gray primer paint chips in their possession, did they just not test those? They used tabulated information from an external source.

7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

Here is the source for the "tabulated" data mentioned above.
[31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.
Available from: EmeraldInsight

How about this quote from Jones.
Link: Letter regarding red gray chip analyses 911Blogger.com

We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours. OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time. This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!

So they definitely had red/gray paint chips according to the first three quotes, but didn't use them for testing in their own paper. Furthermore, in the last quote above from Jones, he clearly says that that the test "distinguishes THE RED GRAY CHIPS from PAINT. Nowhere does he say that this test distinguishes the active thermitic red/gray chips from red/gray paint chips.

 

[Gamolon]

I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Let's discuss your post above.

As posted previously, here is the quote from the paper that designates which samples are designated as samples 1 thru 4.

2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/
Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected
by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample
collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4.

Furthermore, Fig (2) has this caption below it. This ties each dust sample 1 thru 4 to a particular chip labeled (a) thru (d). This makes chip (b) from the Delassio/Breidenback sample 2.

Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The
inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon
conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).

If you think the reason for the lack of published red/gray chip DSC results from the Delassio/Breidenbach dust sample is because the chip was dead/inactive like you convey in your quote above, then why in the hell did Harrit and his group continue to use chip (b) throughout the paper and post it's results? You have continually stated that this paper is about ACTIVE THERMITIC CHIPS only right Capstone?

 

[Gamolon]

It seems to me that you're the one assuming that your narrow interpretation applies irrespective of context throughout the paper. Since when does language work that way for any comprehensive composition, scientific or otherwise?!

Let's look at the abstract again (I've emphasized the areas you'd previously highlighted in red):

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. ..."

This has no bearing on the question as to whether or not all of the "distinctive red/gray chips" collected would be tested and reported on in the paper. To assume other wise would be just that - an assumption.

I'm not suggesting that they tested all the chips! That's the problem! They are using the results from SOME of the so-called favorable chip results to stereotype ALL the magnetically attracted red/gray chips as being active thermite. The fact that later people say there are different kinds of red/gray chips REFUTES Harrit's conclusion. That's why I am saying that any reference in the paper to "the chips", "these chips", "these red/gray", etc., can ONLY be traced back to meaning the magnetically red/gray chips extracted from each dust pile. There is no definition or further separation criteria after the magnet attraction criteria to separate active thermitic chips from other types of red/gray chips.

So when Harrit's paper concludes that...

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

...the only traceable, definitive definition of what "the red/gray chips" are is the red/gray chips extracted by a magnet. That means all of the chips they separated out. PERIOD. There is nothing else. The fact that you have to use supplemental videos and websites to prove that which should be in the paper in the first place is proof positive that the paper is garbage.

 

[Capstone]

So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips. ...

Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.

We know how many r/g chips were utilized in the results reported by the Harrit group. That doesn't justify any assumptions as to whether or not and/or how many other magnetic r/g chips were more closely examined, tested, and reported on (or not), and it certainly doesn't warrant any assumptions by the paper's readers as to the further nature of such chips beyond their cursory distinctive appearances and the fact that they were attracted to the magnet during collection.

...These red/gray chips referring to the "distinctive" red/gray chips mentioned previously. No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips yet.

Still no mention of how many were recovered either...

...these chips still referring to the generic, one type of "distinctive" red/gray chips.

...and still referring to an unknown quantity, since we only know of how many r/g chips were used in the reported results from the XEDS analyses. How many others were so analyzed (or not) but not reported on more extensively? That remains an open question, to which, I suggest, no answer should be assumed by the paper's readers, at least not prior to external validation of such assumptions.

The red material refers to the red/layer of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips. Still nothing mentioned about any other type of red/gray chip.

...still no mention of how many distinctive red material-bearing chips were recovered and subjected (or not) to further examination, testing, and reporting. Broken record, I know.

...the chips, yet again, still refer to the generic, single type of "distinctive" red/gray chip they first mentioned. ...

Not quite. Here the phrase, "the chips", refers only to the distinctive r/g chips that, "when ignited in a DSC device", exhibited large but narrow exotherms, ETC.

Interesting. The chips ignite FAR below the normal ignition of for conventional thermite, yet he classifies it as thermite.

Yes, the chips that ignited did so at a lower temperature than that of conventional thermitic material. So? Well, obviously, especially in light of some of the paper's other observations (such as the relatively low atomic weight of the red layer, as well as its compositional uniformity), this thermitic material is unconventional (I.E. not available on the open market to private construction companies).

...these peculiar red/gray chips still refer to the generic "red/gray chips, At this point, you want us to believe that there are other types of red/gray chips.

Again, not quite. Clearly, the phrase, "following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips", refers only to the r/g chips that had ignited and left numerous iron-rich spheres in the resulting residue.

...these chips still referring to the "distinctive" chips they discovered.

That depends on what you mean by "the", Gams. If you're talking about the chips they heat-tested and reported on, then yeah, they were definititely among the unknown quanity of "distinctive red/gray chips" recovered from the samples.

...So tell me Capstone, just reading the abstract so far and using the paper as your only basis to form an opinion, how does anyone reading Harrit's paper get any other impression other than any red/gray chip extracted from the four piles of dust using a magnet will be anything BUT active thermite?

By way of erroneous assumption based mainly on a number of wrongly interpreted words?

...You see, Harrit's paper has a major problem. It's the same problem I have been trying to point out to you. His paper clearly tries to make the point that all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet are thermtic material. So far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Wrong. His paper lays out the repeatable observational and testing methodologies concisely and reports the results that support its chief conclusion. Thermitic material was found by identifying the common compositions of specific r/g chips with various types of spectroscopy (including one type that eliminated surface ccontamination from the equation), and the "activity" of the red material on specific chips was proven in the DSC device. Your assumption that "all red/gray chips attracted to [a] magnet are thermitic material" (much less active thermitic material) is apparently based on the fact that the Harrit group didn't state otherwise in the paper. In logicians' circles that's known as an Appeal to Silence, a glaring fallacy.

Listen, Gams, I've a lot on my plate outside of internet activity at the moment, so it could be a day or three before I post my responses to your other replies. Rest assured, though, barring divine or terrestrial intervention, they're coming.

 

[SAYIT]

So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips. ...

Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.

We know how many r/g chips were utilized in the results reported by the Harrit group. That doesn't justify any assumptions as to whether or not and/or how many other magnetic r/g chips were more closely examined, tested, and reported on (or not), and it certainly doesn't warrant any assumptions by the paper's readers as to the further nature of such chips beyond their cursory distinctive appearances and the fact that they were attracted to the magnet during collection...

I just wanna know WTF you are smokin' and where I can get some?
Really dude ... try the chocolate chip cookies.

 

[daws101]

So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips. ...

Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.

We know how many r/g chips were utilized in the results reported by the Harrit group. That doesn't justify any assumptions as to whether or not and/or how many other magnetic r/g chips were more closely examined, tested, and reported on (or not), and it certainly doesn't warrant any assumptions by the paper's readers as to the further nature of such chips beyond their cursory distinctive appearances and the fact that they were attracted to the magnet during collection...

I just wanna know WTF you are smokin' and where I can get some?
Really dude ... try the chocolate chip cookies.

it's gotta be crack it's the only thing I know of that makes you yammer non sense for days at a time...

 

[Capstone]

So now, anyone reading the abstract in Harrit's paper gets the idea that they found active thermitic material in the form of red/gray chips. As of yet, there is no indication of any other type of red/gray chip.

If we're allowed to consider subsequent statements by Harrit and other members of the group, that's because they apparently didn't report on any such chips in the paper (which seems perfectly reasonable in light of its title).

...So now I have a question. Is your thinking that at this step of the paper, Harrit and his group unknowingly extracted various types of red/gray chips (active, dead, primer paint, etc.) to the magnet?

I believe so, yes, but that belief isn't based solely on what's written in the paper; it's also based on the authors' subsequent statements outside of the paper.

...Question. In Fig. (2), since they are supposedly publishing information on active thermtic chips ONLY, how did they determine at this point (1. Charatcterization of the Red/Gray Chips) in the paper that chips (a) thru (d) were active thermitic material?

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can you please quote directly from the paper (or the abstract) where any of the r/g chips are characterized as "active" before their ignition in the DSC device? Thanks in advance.

Below is a quote regarding what Mark Basile says about red/gray paint chips. <snip> .....

So, in support of your statement that members of Harrit's group admitted to using fresh paint chips for resistivity testing instead of badly degraded ones from the samples, you've given me a non-member's speculation about a member (Mark Basile about Steven Jones), a hearsay account from a known OCT apologist (Chris Mohr about Kevin Ryan), and (Hooray! Hooray!) the testimonies of a couple of members that non-thermitic r/g (but visually different) paint chips had been extracted from the dust, and last but not least, some relevant quotes from the paper itself; ...and I don't doubt a bit of it! In fact, these accounts shore up what I've been saying all along, namely that it's likely a number of peripherally relevant things were found but not reported in the paper.

So they definitely had red/gray paint chips according to the first three quotes, but didn't use them for testing in their own paper. Furthermore, in the last quote above from Jones, he clearly says that that the test "distinguishes THE RED GRAY CHIPS from PAINT. Nowhere does he say that this test distinguishes the active thermitic red/gray chips from red/gray paint chips.

Okay, so they used fresh paint chips (which almost certainly would have been stronger/more resistent than any paint chips pulled from the dust samples, BTW). It's a non-issue that OCT apologists nonetheless have to fixate on because they have so little else.

It should also be said: according to Mohr's hearsay account, Kevin Ryan stated that the r/g paint chips were visually different from the thermitic ones, which would justify the paper's characterization of the thermitic ones as "distinctive red/gray chips" with "marked similarities" apparently not exhibited by the r/g paint chips.

I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Let's discuss your post above.

As posted previously, here is the quote from the paper that designates which samples are designated as samples 1 thru 4.

2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/
Breidenbach sample, will be sample 2; the sample collected
by Mr. Jody Intermont will be sample 3; and the sample
collected by Mr. Stephen White will be sample 4.

Furthermore, Fig (2) has this caption below it. This ties each dust sample 1 thru 4 to a particular chip labeled (a) thru (d). This makes chip (b) from the Delassio/Breidenback sample 2.

Fig. (2). Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The
inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon
conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).

If you think the reason for the lack of published red/gray chip DSC results from the Delassio/Breidenbach dust sample is because the chip was dead/inactive like you convey in your quote above, then why in the hell did Harrit and his group continue to use chip (b) throughout the paper and post it's results? You have continually stated that this paper is about ACTIVE THERMITIC CHIPS only right Capstone?

Wrong, Gamolon. I've been consistent in my stated beliefs throughout our discussion, most notably in that all tests and analyses prior to heat testing confirm only the thermitic nature of the "distinve r/g chips" and that activity/inactivity can only be determined by the DSC device. That one of the samples may not have rendered an active thermitic chip wouldn't change the fact, that according to various types of spectroscopy, it did render thermitic ones.

And as pointed out a bit later in the very same post you excerpted...

. . .Having said that, there's really no need for me to justify the Harrit group's decisions as to what they reported and what they may have withheld, because what they reported suffienctly proves the premise of their paper, namely that active thermitic material was found in the WTC dust, yes, even if only 3 of the 4 samples yielded active thermitic chips for testing in the DSC device. ...[emphasis added]

...it has no bearing on the paper's chief conclusion. Active thermitic material could have been found in only 1 of the samples and the paper's title would still have been accurate.

More to come...

 

[Capstone]

I'm not suggesting that they tested all the chips! That's the problem! They are using the results from SOME of the so-called favorable chip results to stereotype ALL the magnetically attracted red/gray chips as being active thermite. ...

That "problem" is your problem, not theirs, since your conclusion in that regard is nothing more than a faulty assumption based on some wrongly interpreted phrases and your desperate refusal to allow the authors' subsequent statements to clarify the meanings of those phrases.

...The fact that later people say there are different kinds of red/gray chips REFUTES Harrit's conclusion. ...

No, it refutes your conclusion about a handful of cherry-picked phrases, the wrongheaded conclusion you've been trying (but failing) to force down our throats.

What those later statements actually do is support the interpretation I've offered as an alternative to your fallacious one.

...That's why I am saying that any reference in the paper to "the chips", "these chips", "these red/gray", etc., can ONLY be traced back to meaning the magnetically red/gray chips extracted from each dust pile. ...

I don't disagree with that statement, Gams. What I take issue with are your consistent attempts to misrepresent what the paper states in various instances, including the premature application of "active" and the dishonest(?) implication that the phrases, "distinctive res/gray chips" with "marked similarities", don't at least allude to the presence/absence of sufficient aspects to differentiate between r/g paint chips and r/g thermitic ones, when you're clearly familiar with subsequent statements by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, and Legge that indicate otherwise.

There is no definition or further separation criteria after the magnet attraction criteria to separate active thermitic chips from other types of red/gray chips.

You mean besides the "marked similarities" that apparently distinguished the "distinctive red/gray chips" from everything else in the dust, including the r/g paint chips?

If so, I suggest that what's needed is further clarification as to which of those "marked similarities" negated the r/g paint chips as candidates for further testing as possible thermitic material, NOT an unwarranted assumption that fits your preconceived conclusion.

So when Harrit's paper concludes that...[the paper's chief conclusion]...the only traceable, definitive definition of what "the red/gray chips" are is the red/gray chips extracted by a magnet. That means all of the chips they separated out. PERIOD. ...

Yeah, including the chips they separated from the visually different r/g paint chips (which apparently didn't share certain "marked similarities" observed on/within the thermitic ones). Obviously some form of spectroscopy would have been needed to eliminate the r/g paint chips, assuming only that they were themselves attracted by the magnet during collection (and not just hitchhikers on other magnetically-atttracted materials in the dust).

...The fact that you have to use supplemental videos and websites to prove that which should be in the paper in the first place is proof positive that the paper is garbage.

The fact that you have to ignore so much of the supplemental evidence you've provided to support your fallacious conclusion WRT Harrit's paper is proof positive that your conclusion is garbage.

According to Neils Harrit (again from one of the videos you posted earlier), I'm paraphrasing here, one of the reasons they selected Bentham as their peer-review medium was that the paper was too lengthy for other unnamed journals. In the interest of brevity, the most likely candidates for non-inclusion in the finished product would have been those that were only peripherally relevant to the paper's chief conclusion. In other words, the fact that Harrit et al didn't include explicit documentation of every speck of debris they eliminated from the pool of subjects for further testing is entirely understandable and perfectly in line with common practice in the peer review arena.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's an arena Harrit's detractors have yet to enter, isn't it? Curious, that.

 

[Skylar]

There. I said it. "9/11 Conspiracy."

In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.

But the events of 9/11 were obviously brought about by a criminal conspiracy (many people coordinating their actions to bring about a particular result), and the only remaining questions are (1) who conspired, (2) what was the objective, and (3) what conclusions are to be drawn.

We, the American public, are led to believe that basically all of the conspirators either died in the plane crashes or have been convicted in American courts, or were killed at a residential compound in Pakistan.

The Bogey Man (men) is (are) dead.

But I call your attention to the collapse of WTC7, a 48 story skyscraper that collapsed in a very controlled manner a couple hours after towers 1 and 2 collapsed. Looking at the video (sorry, I'm too technically stupid to link it), the collapse looks remarkably like the planned implosions of large buildings that we see on the news when one or another demolition company is brought in to destroy a large building for future development of the real estate. "We" are expected to believe that the plane crashes and the seismological movement from the previous events of that day so weakened the superstructure of WTC7 that it simply collapsed on its own.

Your account for what you're 'expected to believe' is inaccurate. You may want to acquaint yourself with the official explanation for WTC 7 before discounting its collapse without 'explosives'.

But that is simply not believable, looking at the video. This was a planned implosion.

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

 

[SAYIT]

There. I said it. "9/11 Conspiracy."

In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.

But the events of 9/11 were obviously brought about by a criminal conspiracy (many people coordinating their actions to bring about a particular result), and the only remaining questions are (1) who conspired, (2) what was the objective, and (3) what conclusions are to be drawn.

We, the American public, are led to believe that basically all of the conspirators either died in the plane crashes or have been convicted in American courts, or were killed at a residential compound in Pakistan.

The Bogey Man (men) is (are) dead.

But I call your attention to the collapse of WTC7, a 48 story skyscraper that collapsed in a very controlled manner a couple hours after towers 1 and 2 collapsed. Looking at the video (sorry, I'm too technically stupid to link it), the collapse looks remarkably like the planned implosions of large buildings that we see on the news when one or another demolition company is brought in to destroy a large building for future development of the real estate. "We" are expected to believe that the plane crashes and the seismological movement from the previous events of that day so weakened the superstructure of WTC7 that it simply collapsed on its own.

Your account for what you're 'expected to believe' is inaccurate. You may want to acquaint yourself with the official explanation for WTC 7 before discounting its collapse without 'explosives'.

But that is simply not believable, looking at the video. This was a planned implosion.

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

Regrettably there's never been a whole lotta rationality within the 9/11 CT Movement, nor has there been much in the way of truth:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - former 9/11 "Truther" Charlie Veitch

 

[Capstone]

The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed.

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.

From Graeme MacQueen's targeted analysis of the FDNY oral histories, in which the testimonies of 60 firefighters indicated forewarnings of building 7's "collapse" (in some cases, 4 to 6 hours in advance):

"...is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases. ..."

"...As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told that it was going to collapse. ..." (bold emphasis mine)

Only 7 of the 60 eyewitnesses relayed that the forewarnings were corroborated by their own observations, and while in positions of authority, this handful was likely influenced by sources outside of the FDNY and the unprecedented events of the day that preceded the "collapse" of building 7.

Again from MacQueen's analysis:

"...There is another possibility that does not require anyone in the FDNY to have been 'in the know.' I refer to one of the options Mackey apparently regards as outlandish:

'''someone ‘in the know’ tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
e.
This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
f.
Those so informed believed it would collapse'''.

I have seen no direct evidence in the FDNY oral histories to support this hypothesis. But it is certainly not irrational to include it in our repertoire as a possibility and to explore it further. We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length. [13]

“'I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located...”'

Q. ''“They felt that just the one building or both of them?”''

A. ''“The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind. I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge. It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”''

When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, '“who the fuck told you that?”' [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers.

In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?

In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an “engineer type person” who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file. (Note Goldbach’s statement in Appendix C that “they said it suffered some form of structural damage”—do we know who “they” refers to?) Exploring this possibility further remains an important task."

It should go without saying, that the type of "imminent collapse" referred to by Chief Peruggia was not of the type that occurred on that day. His testimony there was in reference to the warning he received by largely unnamed sources prior to any of the previously unprecedented 'global collapses' that would later take place.

 

[Gamolon]

[QUOTE="Capstone, post: 10372630, member: 35495"Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.[/quote]

Capstone,

I am going to reiterate my point about Harrit's paper being garbage one more time.

The fact of the matter is that Harrit's paper concludes that ALL red/gray chips extracted from a pile of WTC dust with a magnet will be active thermitic material.

Based on just Harrit's paper only, show me why I (or anyone else) reading that paper would think that any red/gray, magnetically attracted would be anything OTHER THAN an active thermitic material. Obviously you are finding excerpts in the paper that lead you to believe that there were magnetically attracted, red/gray chips OTHER THAN an active thermtic material.

So show me.