Discussion regarding Harrit's Bentham thermite paper...

Discussion in '9/11' started by Gamolon, Sep 30, 2016.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
  2. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38

    I feel like I'm late to the party, but anyway I'll throw my 2 cents in..

    In the WTC there were primarily two types of primer paint used; Tnemec Primer paint used on the majority of the steal beams, and LaClede Primer, used on the floor trusses. The main comparisons between the two is that Tnemec has spikes of Cr and Zn, LaClede does not.

    In the Bentham Paper authored by Harrit et al, there are in fact two, not one, type of material tested. Samples (a) to (d) are all identical, and are shown in the top left of the image you have linked. These samples match LaClade primer paint. Testing on identical chips 3 years later in 2012 from other dust samples by J Millette found these chips were an epoxy resin with aluminum silicate plates (Kaolin) and iron oxide mixed in to give it pigment.. in other words paint.

    The second chip was never formally identified by Harrit et al. This was the chip which was soaked in MEK and which you link the spectrum of at the bottom of your post. Over on JREF we called it the MEK chip. The spectrum does not match sample chips (a) to (d). It does however as has been correctly stated, match the sample of "primer paint"; Tnemec Primer, to be exact.

    The long and short of it, is that Harrit, Jones et al never found thermite. It was a complete hoax.

    On a slightly sadder note, one of the co-authors of the paper, Frank Legge, passed away a few days ago after a battle with skin cancer. More interestingly he was known for teaming up with Warren Stutt and put out an excellent analysis of AAL77's flight data recorder, managing to extract 4 seconds more of data which showed the flight path recorded by the FDR matched that of the official story. His attempt was to settle the argument for good and unite the truth movement away from no-planer nonsense. Unfortunately truthers don't respond well to evidence and most just ignored it.

    Anyway.. hope that clears things up.
     
  3. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Pretty much all that needs to be said at this point, though outlining the details is appreciated.

    Given that he was involved in a hoax, I wouldn't be so sure his goal was "settling arguments". There's a dynamic in long cons where people take the roles "fighting" to make the con look legit. What's really sad is he didn't come clean.

    Thanks. Good to have a post for reference.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For those of you interested in the discussion (or refutation) of Harrit's paper (a collaboration of research conducted by several experts) you may find this article by Wayne Coste of interest:

    Red/Gray Chips, 10 Years Later

    Paper on Active-Thermitic Material Remains Unchallenged

    April 3, 2019 marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of the landmark paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," by Dr. Niels H. Harrit, along with Dr. Steven Jones, chemist Kevin Ryan and others. This is one of the key scientific studies that was ignored by the FBI’s 9/11 Review Commission, which underscores the need for a court-overseen review of the 9/11 related evidence that was not included in the 2004 9/11 Commission Report. This study is so significant that it was included as Exhibit 1 of the Department of Justice Grand Jury Petition filed with the office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, New York, by The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry. Over the last decade, it has mostly been criticized in the blog-o-sphere. There was one attempt by James R. Millette, Ph.D., Executive Director of MVA Scientific Consultants, to develop a technical paper refuting the findings of Harrit et al, but upon receiving feedback from his preliminary draft report, the project was abandoned and the analysis was not rehabilitated. Because Millette's preliminary draft study has been used by many in the blog-o-sphere, who have limited technical competency, a discussion of some of the shortcomings, with the Millette report, is included as an addendum.

    Overview


    An investigative team, originally lead by Dr. Stephen Jones and Jeff Farrer, discovered distinctive red/gray chips in samples of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Detailed examination of the chips was then performed by a larger group of experts. They examined four samples of dust that had been collected from separate sites and reported the results in their paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." 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.


    Skipping to the relevant portion (relevant to those who feel it's their job to defend the OCT at all costs):

    Addendum: The Millette Paper


    In early 2012, Dr. James R. Millette, Ph.D., Executive Director of MVA Scientific Consultants, distributed a technical paper that purported to refute the findings of Harrit et al. However, upon receiving feedback from those who reviewed it, the effort was abandoned. Subsequently, no other person or entity elected to address the criticisms and the analysis was never furthered or rehabilitated. Because this preliminary, draft study has been used by many people in the blog-o-sphere, who have limited technical competency, a discussion of some of the issues with the Millette report has been extracted from an article by Kevin Ryan at his Dig Within website.

    Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.

    As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.

    Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate. Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.

    Millette rested his case on Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.

    In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.

    I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.

    Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work. If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.


    https://www.911tap.org/557-news-releases/802-red-gray-chips-10-years-later
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2019
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It SHOULD have been ignored. Harrit and his cronies found paint chips. Ever wonder why Harrit never showed compositions of either of the two primer paint chips used on the steel next to his supposed thermite chips? Because they are one in the same! Nothing but garbage research performed by Harrit. No wonder Mark Basile took took the $5000 and ran. He couldn't differentiate between between thermite and paint chips either as they are both the same thing.

    Even Stephen Jones agrees that what Harrit found were paint chips. The slide in his presentation proves it.

    This paint chip versus thermite could have been solved very easily. Show the paint chip analysis next to the "thermite" chip analysis. Case closed.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Harrit also claimed he had thermite chips that DIDN'T ignite, proclaimed them "dead thermtiic chips", and blamed the environment (water) for the reason they were "dead". If the ignition in a DSC was so important in determining a chip as being thermite, how did Harrit determine that a chip that DIDN'T ignite as being thermite?

    Again, nothing but garbage, lazy research on Harrit's part.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More baloney.

    The four sample were:
    1. MacKinlay
    2. Delessio/Breidenback
    3. Intermont
    4. White

    Notice that in the DSC test results shown below, they didn't test chips from the Delessio/Breidenback sample. So the fact they claim they tested all four samples is ridiculous.
    DSC.png
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting.

    So resistance is supposed to be checked to make sure you have the right chip? I wonder why Harrit didn't test chips from each sample? He only tested one chip and compared that result to a TABULATED TABLE from an outside source (notice he didn't test an actual primer paint chip from any of the dust) for paint resistance. He than took that result and used it for ALL the chips he had because he assumed they were all the same.

    Resistivity.png
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If each of the tests listed above is SO important in determining if a chip is thermite or not and none of the tests can be skipped, how can Harrit claim this:
    EnrgeticRedMaterial.png

    How was he able to make the claim regarding the percentage of thermitic material without running every test on every chip extracted and separated? Were the 69 chips run through all the tests to make sure all of them were thermitic in nature? According to Harrit's paper, he didn't.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein

    And that's exactly what you're doing.

    First, the claim is that the Harrit/Jones paper remains [legitimately] unchallenged and the only "challengers" are those "in the blog-o-sphere, who have limited technical competency" (or none I would add). And you fit that characterization quite aptly.

    Second, neither Jones or Harrit have ever refuted their own research or conclusions (as you insinuate) and there is no evidence of that being true at any time.

    Third, the paper includes multiple expert collaborators, not just Jones and Harrit all of whom are listed as authors, none of them refute or retract their work.

    Fourth, no one (especially not you) has done any research that fully duplicates what these experts have done, so no one can properly critique their work, which is what you are doing without having done any work or even having the expertise or standing to do so.

    Fifth, the paper is being used as EVIDENCE in 2 court cases so I seriously doubt anyone would file such evidence without being quite confident it's accurate.

    Sixth, the author(s) have invited any appropriate expert(s) to duplicate what they did and reach whatever conclusion(s) may be valid accordingly. You are nowhere near that type of person but you certainly have the right to publish your own peer reviewed paper challenging what these experts conclude because that is your fanatical agenda. Let me know how your "paint chips" conclusion goes.

    Seventh, the matter is only part of a host of evidence that disputes/contradicts the official 9/11 claims, it is far from standalone.

    And last but not least, any genuine person with reasonable intelligence would welcome a legitimate comprehensive investigation into everything about 9/11, especially given the mountain of evidence that disputes it. As opposed to condemning it all lacking any expertise in the matter (see quote above). And that is the purpose of these legal actions and the petition calling for a "new" investigation into 9/11.

    For me I don't know if a thermite/thermate product was actually used to facilitate the complete destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 but I do know that there are many corroborating eyewitness claims of molten steel/iron/metal and that both FEMA and the Harrit/Jones team did find evidence of microscopic iron spheres in the dust which could only have been produced by extreme temperatures resulting in spraying and melting of such a metal. Some kind of incendiary must have been capable of causing that effect and a thermite/thermate product is certainly a viable candidate. To dismiss that possibility without a proper investigation is most definitely for an ignorant mentality.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2019
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48

    None of the above has anything to do with what I have shown from Harrit's own paper that refutes Coste's blathering. Coste is dismissing Millette's paper on that fact that he thinks Millette didn't do all the tests in Harrit's paper on each of his chips to determine that they were the correct chips. This is complete crap as I have pointed out and proven using entries from Harrit's own paper.

    The resistivity test is one such test. Coste (and others) are claiming that the resistivity test is important in determining if one has the correct chip, that it is NOT paint, and that it is thermite. Harrit's own paper clearly states that they tested ONE CHIP.

    ONE CHIP. Get it yet Bobby?

    Which of the four chips in the paper did he test? What about the other three? Also, he published DSC results for chips from three samples, not four. Where is the DCS results for the forth sample? He didn't test the fourth sample or it would have been in the paper.

    He included the results of ONE FLAME IGNITION TEST on ONE CHIP. Which of the four chips did he test?

    It's common sense. If you are claiming that four samples contain thermite, you better damn well be consistent and publish results for each test for each of the four chips. Harrit failed to do that as had been proven. The paper can only be taken one way. Harrit assumed that all the red/grey chips that he pulled out with a magnet were the same. Thermite. That's the only way you can explain his random testing on random chips and then applying those results to ALL chips.

    Bottom line is that Harrit didn't perform all the tests on all four chips. So if you're going to condemn Millette's study based on that, then Harrit's study should be also.

    Tell you what Bobby. Based on Harrit's paper, how about YOU tell us how to select a chip from the dust and then which tests should be performed before proclaiming it's thermite. If you do that, maybe you'll understand why people like Mark Basile haven't duplicated Harrit's results.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'll make this easy for you.

    According to Harrit's paper, Is a resistivity 100% needed to help determine if a chip is a thermite chip or not? I'll wait for your evasion of the question.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here's the issue Bobby.

    Wayne Coste (and many others) use the "they didn't replicate Harrit's testing" to dismiss people's work. The term "replicate" in this discussion means that anyone who does a study must perform ALL the tests laid out in Harrit's paper on EVERY SINGLE CHIP as that is seemingly the only way to determine if you have thermite or not.

    So according to Harrit's paper, this is the procedure.

    Initial chip isolation/selection
    1. Distintive red/gray coloring
    2. Attracted by magnet so use a magnet to separate the red/gray chips from the bulk of the dust sample

    Testing applied chips garnered from above isolation/selection procedure
    1. SEM microscope used to perform secondary-electron imaging and backsctattered electron imaging to examine topography and porosity of the red/gray
    2. Use the above microscope to also get an XEDS spectra
    3. DSC test and ignition of chips at 415-435 degrees C
    4. Examine by visible-light microscopy
    5. MEK solvent test
    6. Iron sphere creation upon chip ignition
    7. Resitivity test
    8. Flame ignition test

    Do I have this correct Bobby? Above is every test needed to be performed on each chip to determine if it's thermite ot not?
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just wonder what posts from you might look like if you spent the same amount of effort and energy critiquing the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports in such detail, which are incredibly defective on every level.

    It has everything to do with YOUR blathering, which has no real purpose anyway. My position on the case for an investigation into the strong probability that a thermite/thermate product (or any incendiary) was used to facilitate the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 stands regardless of your fanatical defense of the OCT (in this case "condemnation without investigation"). The matter is in the courts, not that I expect the courts to decide to ever investigate 9/11 but the demand to investigate is unrelenting as it should be. The thermite/thermate issue rests with expert witnesses, and that definitely does not apply to you or me. For me, there is so much more to 9/11 than the thermite/thermate issue.

    What's "common sense" and the "real issue" is exactly what I posted:

    But you want to dismiss the possibility without a thorough investigation because you obviously are not interested in such an investigation, or any for that matter. I think Einstein got it just perfectly right.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're entire post addressed nothing I have brought up Bobby.

    YOU posted something from Wayne Coste. I am showing that Wayne is talking out of both sides of his mouth as I have prove. He wants to discredit Millette's research based on the fact that Millette didn't perform all the tests talked about in Harrit's paper on each chip had.

    Yet Harrit didn't do all tests on all his chips either. The proof is what I have posted directly from Harrit's paper.

    If you don't want to discuss what you posted and my refutation of it, that's your problem.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that would be 100% false since I addressed your posts.

    I already did but you don't want to accept my posts as posted. I don't have a problem with what you posted, it is strictly your opinion and I disagree with it .... as usual. I will reiterate that you have a constitutionally protected right to file an Amicus Curiae brief refuting/contradicting the Harrit/Jones findings however you might have a problem with credibility as you are not qualified to be an expert witness. As also stated, the thermite/thermate issue is not my primary concern and I am not in any qualified position to support or refute it and neither are you, despite your delusional belief that you are and/or that you are in any position to critique those far above your scientific skills (which is very narrowly limited to the fanatical defense of the OCT).
     
  17. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You disagree with the fact that Wayne Coste's "didn't follow the proper testing procedure" reasons for discrediting Millette's report on the chips should be applied to Harrit's report to discredit it?

    My being an "expert" has nothing to do with it. Nobody needs to be an expert to figure out that Wayne's "testing procedure" reason to discredit Millette is a bunch garbage. If all tests needed to be run on every chip extracted from a dust pile in order to determine that they are thermite, then Harrit failed his own criteria. Anybody that can read can figure that out, no expertise needed.

    Whether the thermite/thermate issue is your primary concern or not, you still posted the information regarding what Wayne thinks.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree with your conclusions as they do not come from a person qualified to arrive at such conclusions, never mind that you have not done any of the work or published anything that is peer reviewable or even anything worthy of publication. Your characterization of their work and just about everyone and anyone who contradicts any part of the OCT is what I would call juvenile garbage.

    Your expertise (relatively speaking) is non-existent, period.

    I sure did, for the record. I post many 9/11 issues for the record, whether these are primary concerns of mine or not. Education on and access to 9/11 issues is extremely critical because most are either not aware or have been subject to propaganda (i.e. deceived) about 9/11. For example, I've posted Judy Wood's theories on energy weapons and Coste's Pentagon video even though I remain skeptical on both.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What's your understanding of what Wayne thinks is the proper procedure to determine if a chip is thermite or not based on his writings? Do you have an understanding of what you posted or did you just do it blindly? Is below the proper testing procedure?

    Initial chip isolation/selection
    1. Distintive red/gray coloring
    2. Attracted by magnet so use a magnet to separate the red/gray chips from the bulk of the dust sample

    Testing applied chips garnered from above isolation/selection procedure
    1. SEM microscope used to perform secondary-electron imaging and backsctattered electron imaging to examine topography and porosity of the red/gray
    2. Use the above microscope to also get an XEDS spectra
    3. DSC test and ignition of chips at 415-435 degrees C
    4. Examine by visible-light microscopy
    5. MEK solvent test
    6. Iron sphere creation upon chip ignition
    7. Resitivity test
    8. Flame ignition test
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019
  20. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you skeptical of Wayne's conclusion regarding Millette's research?
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Already explained.

    Insulting question.

    Already explained that the “proper testing procedure” protocol is above my pay grade as it is above yours.

    No but it is open to those who have the appropriate expertise to evaluate further if necessary. For me it’s not about Millette’s research, it’s partly about the Harrit/Jones research. In other words that research requires peer reviewed concurrence or rejection. Something Millette did not conduct, in fact no one did thus far. Hopefully the courts will settle the matter using appropriate expert witnesses. However I have no confidence in the legal system. They have already shown their colors on 9/11 issues.
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You think Wayne has expertise in the field of chemistry? He's an electrical engineer.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No and neither do you.

    I’m well aware.
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting.

    You trust/promote Wayne's conclusion even though you admit he is not an expert in the field being discussed yet dismiss other's conclusions based on the same "not an expert" excuse.

    I see the hypocrisy here.

    Well done Bobby.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I doubt that you see very much at all, especially not your own hypocrisy. Regardless your opinions are of no interest to me other than for what I can extract from them for my own personal agenda.
     

Share This Page