Discussion regarding Harrit's Bentham thermite paper...

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

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Jones' spectrum taken from a paint chip scraped of of WTC steel:
    [​IMG]

    Harrit's spectrum that he declares to be contaminated thermite:
    [​IMG]

    Almost exactly the same spectrum. What Jones shows is also what Harrit shows.

    Harrit declares paint chips to be thermite. Jones' spectrum proves this. Continue to play games if you wish and ignore the evidence. That's your choice.
     
  2. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You clearly have no understanding what that sentence means. I took nothing out of context Bob. I posted two pictures. One is Jones' slide SHOWING a spectrum from a paint chip taken from WTC steel. It says so right in Jones' own slide. I took another picture from Harrit's Bentham paper showing the almost exact same spectrum and Harrit declares it to be contaminated thermite.

    Show me what I am "taking out of context".

    :roflol:
     
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not true.

    James Millette reproduced the tests and said that the chips were paint.
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

    Quote from the paper's conclusion:
    Truthers then claimed that Millette had the wrong chips. Truthers were then asked to give the tests within Harrit's paper that would determine the right chips. Not one truther has come forth with that list of tests.
     
  4. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I stand corrected. I was aware of Millette investigating truther claims. I hadn't been clear he was specificly double checking the Bentham "research".

    That man deserves a medal.

    [Edited]
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not the one playing games YOU are. No paper, no cigar, no credibility, no interest. The thermite/thermate theories are just that and only one possible issue out of many, many thousands of much more important issues. That NIST deliberately never investigated for incendiaries is FACT and the real FRAUD here, not what you believe you came up with. When you decide to raise any significant question about the OCT, the REAL 9/11 ISSUE, I might change my mind about your credibility. Unless and until you're ready to do that, there's very little you can post that's meaningful to me other than what I can use to help expose the REAL FRAUD.

    You have yet to raise anything detailed that I could consider legitimate that might impact the Harrit/Jones/etc. findings. Even if you actually did, it would not amount to anything that would change the fact that the OCT is an impossible theory. The standard is the OCT, it is loaded with giant holes and obviously fraudulent yet you never, ever take a stab at it. All you keep doing is to try to swat flies flailing at everything that you believe might contradict the OCT. That is not a legitimate position for any honest person to take. Based on the many posts I've read from you, you've done extensive research and you are taking on an intellectually dishonest position.
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    All your whining means NOTHING. That FACT remains that Harrit deemed chips to be contaminated thermite and then Jones goes and proves that what Harrit found was in fact paint from the WTC steel.

    Case closed.
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Anyone here interested in discussing the thread topic?
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I fixed that for you for accuracy.

    Then why are you here defending the OCT every chance you get if the "case is closed"? It should stand on its own merit, it shouldn't need anyone like you fanatically defending it.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry the Millette paper is not based on valid science nor has it been peer reviewed nor is it anything credible given it comes from a NIST INSIDER who has a stake in keeping the OCT and NIST's fraudulent claims intact. This was already addressed in this thread, pay attention.

    NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.

    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


    https://digwithin.net/2013/12/08/thermite/

    You might as well have Shyam Sunder write a paper claiming all the research done by independent scientists who have contradicted NIST declare it's all invalid.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess you don't like the way the DISCUSSION is going for you so you're ASSuming I'm not discussing it. Oh well, sorry you only want to hear that the paper is a "joke".
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So in addition to Steven Jones showing that Harrit examined paint chips from the WTC steel and NOT thermite, we have the unreliable testing procedure laid out in the Bentham paper.

    According to Harrit and many of the supporters of the paper, the following should be used to determine that chips are thermite:

    - Red/gray layers and attracted to a magnet
    - The chips are brittle and tend to cleave and fragment in certain ways
    - Resistivity testing shows a huge difference between this material and paints
    - The MEK test reveals how porous the red material is, and that it remains hard even after more than 50 hours of soaking, while paints become soft and limp
    - The MEK soaking disrupts the red matrix material and shows that the aluminum in the platelets is not bound to the silicon, which demonstrates elemental aluminum and rules out kaolin
    - The red material XEDS signature does have some common elements with some paints, and MilletteĀ“s chips
    - The ignition tests reveal a dramatic difference between the thermitic chips and paints

    Here's the kicker. Harrit and many of his truther followers say that the ignition test and the formation of iron microspheres DUE to that ignition is of utmost importance in determining a chip as being thermite. The problem being is that Harrit has stated that he had DEAD/INACTIVE thermite in addition to active thermite. If the ignition and resultant residue coating iron microspheres is the final result needed in determining a chip as being thermite, then how could Harrit have declare that the chips which DIDN'T ignite as being thermite? He even made mention that the chips deteriorated due to unfavorable conditions and that's why they didn't ignite. Not that they were something else, but still thermite. They DIDN'T IGNITE and thus, no iron fresh iron microspheres could have been produced.

    Not one truther has come forth with a list of tests from the paper that will determine if a chip is thermite or not. They all avoid this like the plague.

    An unreliable testing procedure and no clear way to determine how a chip is determined to be thermite is just another reason this paper is garbage.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Another point to consider why the Bentham paper is fraudulent.

    Harrit went on a crusade to show why the chips were not paint. He even wrote a paper on it a little while after the Bentham paper was published.

    Here's the rub. Many folks involved with the paper said that there were red/gray paint chips among the red/gray thermite chips (along with OTHER types of red gray chips). If this was the case, why was there no data published in the BEntham paper regarding this? If Harrit and his group had separated out red/gray paint chips from the red/gray thermite chips, why did the authors have to go to an external source for primer paint resistances? Why didn't they just test the red/gray primer paint chips they found? Very suspicious.

    The bottom line is that Harrit thought ALL the red/gray chips he extracted with a magnet were thermite chips. That's why he claimed the spectrum he published in the paper (shown in my first post) was contaminated thermite INSTEAD of saying it was paint.

    In reality, as shown by Steven Jones spectrum, Harrit had paint chips, not thermite chips.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So did you email your personal findings/concerns to the authors? I understand they've challenged anyone to peer review their work. I don't believe any one of them is a member of this forum, you're addressing those who are not qualified (not that you are either) about research done that no one in this forum has any real clue about, including you. What kind of forensic testing of the dust samples have YOU done?

    Why are you so concerned about this yet you've expressed no concern about a real fraud that affects everyone on the planet, the one being used as the official standard? The Gage/Harrit/etc. paper can be completely dismissed and it still doesn't change the fact that the OCT is a massive fraud or affects anything or anyone in any way. Do you ask why NIST didn't do what these people did, which was a key part of their job?

    And these are just some of the reasons why you can't be taken seriously. With you it's ALWAYS all about attacking/criticizing anyone who contradicts the OCT, ALWAYS liberally pulling out the "truther" label card (as opposed to LIAR?), rather than addressing people as individuals. If they're really wrong, prove it to THEM. In the alternative, write a technical paper and publish it for peer review. I personally would be interested in a REAL scientific challenge of their work, not just blurbs in a message forum coming from an anonymous internet jockey with a specific agenda. Maybe you're 100% right, maybe not, PROVE it in scientific fashion if it concerns you that much.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have proven it Bob. You just don't like the answer.

    Steven Jones presented a spectrum in his presentation that he had gotten from paint scraped of WTC steel. That is a fact!

    Harrit presented a spectrum from a chip that MATCHES the same spectrum Steven Jones presented as mentioned above.

    Bssed on that, it is proven that Harrit mistakenly identified PAINT chips and THERMITE. If you don't like the evidence then refute it. I don't know what else to tell you. It doesn't get any easier than that. Steven Jones himself PROVES what Harrit was actually looking at and it wasn't thermite.
     
  16. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What about you Bob? Have you emailed NIST or a government official about YOUR findings/concerns?

    I don't think anyone from NIST is a member of this forum either so why are YOU addressing those that are not qualified with YOUR concerns? Why do you present YOUR arguments here aginst certain aspects of the NIST report or the "OCT"?

    Why does this matter Bob? I am addressing a conflict between two of the authors and using their own data? What would me testing my own samples have to do with Jones contradicting what Harrit says? You'r e not making sense.

    What about you Bob? Why are YOU so concerned about the "OCT" yet you've expressed no concern about the rampant misinformation being spread about conspiracies regarding 9/11?

    A masive fraud? HAve you taken you're own advice and spoken directly to NIST about this instead of addressing those folks here whom you seem to think are clueless?

    Have you?

    Back at ya Bob. look in the mirror. Everything you've spewed here applies to you also. Pot, meet kettle.

    What about you Bob? You're ALWAYS attacking those that criticize conspiracy theories.

    So why don't you PROVE IT TO NIST Bob?

    Like I said before. I HAVE proven it. I used Jones' own data to prove Harrit was looking at paint chips. Address the content Bob, not the person right? Have you done that yet or are you going to continue to discuss me instead?

    Now, I'm done addressing your comments regarding me. The title of the thread is about Harrit's bentham paper. If you want to discuss it and what information I've presented then please do so. If not, please move along and stop cluttering this thread with your garbage.
     
  17. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think you're being too kind. I have a very difficult time believing Harrit was simply self deluded if he came up with the explanation "contaminated thermite". Put ourselves in his shoes, if he really believed in this thermit bs. As a scientist he has a high bar to make vivavis extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If he found chips he knew were not acting like thermite, he should have rigorousness tested wtf they were, not just assume they're similar to what he wants them to be.

    Nope, not buying it. Harrit, like Jones, simply assumed their target audience was to uneducated to critically refute them, and as Bob proves, they were right.

    I dimly remember one of the organizations involved in this scam was S & J Laboratories, which turned out to be a private property of Jones's somewhere, but I can remember the exact source right now.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If to you a post in a forum constitutes scientifically detailed proof, it's just more evidence that all you do is spew hot air. What REAL expert do you believe would accept a post as "proof"?

    When you post a REAL answer I'll let you know if I like it or not, so far you haven't done that.

    The rest of your post is nothing more than your opinion and has zero to do with proof of anything, get real, you fool no one.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A couple of problems with your question.

    1. Unlike you I don't pretend to be qualified to contradict NIST in any scientifically detailed manner so they're not likely to take any of my concerns seriously.

    2. Most of the concerns that I have are the same as many other experts who have done the research, are fully credentialed in the appropriate disciplines and have already emailed NIST with those concerns. Here's one example:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf

    To educate those who are truly concerned about an OFFICIAL position that is fraudulent. If you note from my posts, unlike you, all of them are usually supported with links from expert opinions/findings. I can only state what is common sense and always claim it's strictly MY opinion based on common sense. Unlike you, I would never declare that I have personal proof. In fact, I always claim it's not my job to prove anything or convince anyone of anything.

    My concern is with the official position on 9/11 and your position is to distract from that by attacking/criticizing anyone/everyone and anything that might contradict the OCT. I'm merely pointing out your agenda.

    You haven't shown anything that could constitute a scientifically detailed argument or anything that supports your case from a legitimate expert. It's all just your opinion. Like I said, you may be 100% right or 100% wrong but you're not qualified to decide nor do you have any credibility to do so.

    It's really simple even for the simple minded and I've stated my position numerous times, even in this thread, yet it's obvious you only want to hear/see what you want to hear/see. The OCT IS THE OFFICIAL party line on 9/11, It is THE PRETEXT that has been and continues to be used for a genocidal agenda and many other human rights atrocities. Not one of these other "conspiracies" (and BTW holding NIST's feet to the fire is NOT a conspiracy and neither is any collapse theory) affects the planet directly in any manner like the OCT.

    The rest of your post is answered above.
     
  20. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I found it. It's right there in the paper:

    (SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA

    This "business" does not exist outside the Bentham paper.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Someone who doesn't know the difference between "to" and "too" shouldn't be commenting on anyone's alleged lack of education. Regardless, your point applies perfectly to the OCT's official reports. The difference is that these are OFFICIAL. By contrast, the Harrit/Jones paper is only known to a very tiny audience and it's highly unlikely that those who are aware of the paper are "uneducated" because if they were, they would never have done the research in the first place.
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roll:

    There doesn't need to be Bob. Steven Jones REFUTES the conclusion that Harrit and his cronies came to about the chips. There is nothing I am adding to the argument. There is nothing I am assuming. It's all right here, but you're pretending to be blind to it and argue that there is some form of scientific proof needed.

    Jones' spectrum from a paint chip:
    [​IMG]

    Harrit's "thermite" spectrum:
    [​IMG]

    Nobody needs to be an "expert" to see that the spectra are almost exactly the same. That's like you asking for scientific evidence proving that two apples placed in front of you are both apples. You're just trying to bog down the discussion.
     
  23. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Uneducated here implies education in the specific fields of study where Jones' twaddle would be called out in a New York second. Not just any general education or liberal arts degree, or any education you think is "disproven" by Grammar Nazi offenses of the most common typos.

    Also you conflate lack of education with lack of awareness. Just because a legion of "truthers" know about the Bentham paper's existence, doesn't mean they possess the education or skills to determine it's validity or accuracy.

    But thanks for admitting the Bentham paper has a tiny audience. Now ask yourself why.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,336
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're trying to convince me of anything it's not working and I'm not interested anyway. I already explained the issues and told you that you could be right and then again you could be wrong, I could care less. Like I said, my concern is with the OCT, not with every theory out there. And the OCT is still the accepted standard despite that it's been proven to be impossible.

    Talk about bogging down the discussion, you've introduced this topic strictly to distract from the reality that the OCT is the ultimate critical discussion and to attack all those who might contradict it.
     
  25. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly!

    Why would he deem chips that DIDN'T ignite as contaminated thermite and not one of the other many red/gray chips said to be in the WTC dust? MAkes no sense at all. Then you have Steven Jones' presentation AFTER the Bentham paper came out showing the pant chip spectrum that matches Harrit's spectrum in the paper.

    This is another aspect that proves the paper to be garbage. Harrit doesn't even follow his own testing criteria for deeming chips to be thermite. He spouts off about ignition and resultant iron microspheres as being tantamount to proving a chip as thermite, yet he claims that non-igniting chips to be just that. I guess ignition of a chip is not part of the testing procedure eh?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Interesting...
     

Share This Page