Thursday, March 15, 2012

Something Left Unsaid

The yahoos at Architects and Engineers finally reply, somewhat, to the recent tests of World Trade Center dust.  Any guesses what point they intentionally leave out?

Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter.


Uhh yeah, let's just avoid mentioning that it did not find thermite in any form.

Update by Pat: Oystein responds:

Claims that Niels Harrit proved that some red-gray chips in the WTC dust are not WTC primer are basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used. In fact, I will show that the chips that Harrit proved to not be Tnemec look very much like LaClede Standard Primer.
As I often say, I don't do the best debunking out there.  I just link to it.  Great job, Oystein!

60 Comments:

At 16 March, 2012 00:30, Blogger Oystein said...

Someone needs to tell Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and all the good men at ae911t that there is NOT ONE WTC PRIMER BUT AT LEAST TWO!

Second WTC primer not considered by all the nanothermiters:

LaClede Standard Primer!

Yes, Harrit showed correctly that chips a-d is not "Tnemec" (used for perimeter columns only), but there was at least one other primer, described in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Appendix B, p. 157 of the PDF file.
The floor joists, manufactured by LaClede Steel Co., were primed with a Zinc-free formulation that consists of
- epoxy-binder (71.5%)
- pigmenr (28.5%)
The pigment in turn consisted of
- iron oxide (55%)
- Al-silicate (kaolin is one!) (41%)
- Strontium Chromate (4%)
We call this the LaClede Standard Primer.

The XEDS spectra of this formulation have a striking similarity, down to many fine details, with those of chips a-d, and the clincher is:
The document this AE911T post links to to "prove" it ain't paint, Harrit's "Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint" (http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf) contains in Fig. 5, right, the extended XEDS graph of chip (a) - IT CONTAINS BOTH STRONTIUM AND CHROMIUM! Those elements were not shown in the Bentham paper, but check out the LaClede Paint formulation I gave earlier!

 
At 16 March, 2012 03:28, Blogger Steffi said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 16 March, 2012 05:26, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Considering these are the same people that:

1. Leave out the EMP

2. Remove the sound of the collapses

3. Constantly quote mine survivors

It's not very surprising.

 
At 16 March, 2012 08:32, Blogger Ian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2012 08:32, Blogger Ian said...

Obviously, that's because the thermite used to destroy the WTC was super-nano thermite, which has a completely different chemical composition than thermite, which is why it can cause silent explosions, and melt steel girders despite being sprayed on a millimeter thick. It also has the ability to make people invisible, which is why those who rigged the towers for demolition were never detected.

 
At 16 March, 2012 08:44, Blogger Oystein said...

James, I wrote a blog post that sources the second primer, from LaClede, and shows how its properties match those of Harrit's chips very nicely:

http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html

 
At 16 March, 2012 09:49, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I'm so glad they've ruled out all possible formulations of energetic nanocomposites, especially by doing their own DSC, and seeing whether the reaction is exothermic between 400-500 degrees.

What? They didn't?

NEVER MIND!!

 
At 16 March, 2012 10:15, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I'm also glad that Millette has never been accused of fraud by HIS OWN COLLEAGUES, and that Oystein's assertions are based on his own observations and experiments with the dust. That would make all of his speculative bluster more trustworthy to real skeptics.

Oh wait...

NEVER MIND!!!

 
At 16 March, 2012 10:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Fat Pat and LamesB like to play Whack-a-mole with their "debunking". They can't answer simple questions about their desperate stupidity when asked specific questions, and simply move on to the next bald (and obese) assertion.

How sad.

"It was torches, retard!!!!" -Pat Curley

 
At 16 March, 2012 10:42, Blogger The Q. said...

How many month Richard Gage and the other Truther can survive in the Debunker Side of the Moon?
1 day (15 march to 16 march)
(^_^)''

 
At 16 March, 2012 11:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm also glad that Millette has never been accused of fraud by HIS OWN COLLEAGUES, and that Oystein's assertions are based on his own observations and experiments with the dust.

Yawn. Lame and desperate.

 
At 16 March, 2012 12:19, Blogger Ian said...

Fat Pat and LamesB like to play Whack-a-mole with their "debunking". They can't answer simple questions about their desperate stupidity when asked specific questions, and simply move on to the next bald (and obese) assertion.

I think I hear the squealing of an unemployed,m zit-faced virgin....

 
At 16 March, 2012 13:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I'm also glad that Millette has never been accused of fraud by HIS OWN COLLEAGUES...

Cowardly lying again? I'm shocked.

At 06 March, 2012 04:52, Grandmastershek said...
As usual Cosmo slurps up whatever tripe helps him live in his fantasy world. Guess thats the way it goes when you have to fake being a family member to get someone to pay attention to you.

Fact is that Jenkins never accused Millette of wrong doing. She only cites a study which he had some involvement in. In her letter she never claims Millette's or his lab ever did anything fraudulent. In fact elsewhere she refers to his WTC studies as "credible" & his lab as prestigious:

There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles [102]...Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates. MVA was a major contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content of WTC dust independently

Keep cherry picking your way through reality.


In Cowardly's moronic world "credible" & "prestigious" must mean "liar" & fraud". After all his high priests of twoof have never been shown to be either of the former. Sorry, but your stupidity is on record and it isn't going anywhere. I guess thats why he ran away the last time he drooled about this.

 
At 16 March, 2012 13:07, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Link for the reality challenged:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2012/03/bits-and-pieces.html

Has Cowardly contacted Jenkins to ascertain her real opinion or is he content to step in line with the twoof and continue misquoting.

 
At 16 March, 2012 13:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I'm so glad they've ruled out all possible formulations of energetic nanocomposites...

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxZTczwGB1PHZlHtlHzJSexjUraQQBPw-8OzHziNLrbbGqGLYG

 
At 16 March, 2012 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what peer-reviewed engineering journal has published Dr. Millette's work? I forget.

 
At 16 March, 2012 15:18, Blogger James B. said...

Got $800? We could get it published in Pakistan like Jones and Harrit.

 
At 16 March, 2012 15:19, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

So what peer-reviewed engineering journal has published Dr. Millette's work? I forget.

First he is presenting his study to the Academy of Forensic Sciences, then he is submitting it tot he corresponding journal. Yah know, the same level of scrutiny Jonesy & company went through.

 
At 16 March, 2012 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2012 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crotchrot brays, "...So what peer-reviewed engineering journal has published Dr. Millette's work? I forget."

Since when does debunking a cult of insane Internet liars, deniers and charlatans require peer review?

Don't you have floors to mop, dipshit? Get back to work, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."

 
At 16 March, 2012 16:52, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Indeed....it really doesn't require peer review as Jones & Co never did in the first place.

 
At 16 March, 2012 18:14, Blogger Oystein said...

"I'm so glad they've ruled out all possible formulations of energetic nanocomposites, especially by doing their own DSC, and seeing whether the reaction is exothermic between 400-500 degrees."
Perhaps Pat can answer a few questions:
a) What do the red layers of both Harrit's and Millette's chips consist MAINLY (>50% of the mass) of?
b) Is this main ingredient of the red layers combustible or not? Combustible meaning will burn in air if heated sufficiently.
c) At what temperature might that stuff ignite?
d) What, in your estimate would be the energy density of this main ingredient, if it is combustible in air?
e) Did Harrit e.al. (Farrer, actually) do their DSC under air?
f) Looking at your answers to a, b, c, and d, what do you think happened in Farrer's DSC?

(I'll give you some hints: a) Organic (hydrocarbon) matrix, such as epopoxy or other binder. b) Yes, hydrocarbons generally burn under air. c) Most hydrocarbons either ignite, or degrade exothermally, at temperatures somewhere between 250°C and 500°C. Epoxies often start reacting at 360°C-400°C. d) Almost all hydrocarbons have energy densities between 10 and 45 kJ/g e) Yes, Farrer did his DSC under air f) When they heated the hydrocarbon matrix, it started degrading and finally combusting in air in a range between 250 and 390°C, peaking around 430°C and releasing more than 15 kJ/g of energy. Since the samples also contained inert iron oxide (gray layer and pigments) and other oxides, energy density for the whole chips was reduced to 1.5-7.5 kJ/g, depending on the mass ratio gray:red layer.

Did you get the sam answers, Pat?

 
At 16 March, 2012 18:21, Blogger Oystein said...

"I'm also glad that Millette has never been accused of fraud by HIS OWN COLLEAGUES, and that Oystein's assertions are based on his own observations and experiments with the dust."

Anyone can accuse others of anything. I can accuse your mother of being a bank robber - does my accusation make her suspicious and untrustworthy, or wouldn't rather reflect an accusation WITHOUT EVIDENCE badly on me? So Pat, where is the EVIDENCE that Mrs. Jenkins' actually accused Millette, and if she did, that the accusations are true?

As for my own observations: They rest firmly on Harrit, Farrer, Jones - it's their data, not mine. It wasn't I who took pictures of kaolinite and hematite in the red-gray chips, it wasn't I who recorded the chemical signature of LaClede standard primer, complete with the required traces of Sr and Cr. And it most certainly wasn't I who published such the useless data on a most incompetently conceived DSC test. It was Farrer, Harrit and Jones who did all that.

I just have the brains to understand. You apparently don't.

 
At 16 March, 2012 18:53, Blogger Len said...

Noticeably 'Pat Cowardly' and 'snug bug' fail to address the deceptive nature of the AE911T page.

 
At 16 March, 2012 22:30, Blogger Ian said...

So what peer-reviewed engineering journal has published Dr. Millette's work? I forget.

Poor Brian. This is the best he can do.

I feel like your heart just isn't into 9/11 truth nonsense anymore, Brian.

 
At 17 March, 2012 10:06, Blogger Ian said...

Speaking of peer review, have you submitted your "meatball on a fork" paper to a journal yet, Brian?

I'm guessing you're too scared to do that, just like you're too scared to debate Willie Rodriguez. You're a coward who runs away squealing and crying whenever you're challenged.

 
At 17 March, 2012 10:53, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Noticeably 'Pat Cowardly' and 'snug bug' fail to address the deceptive nature of the AE911T page

As always their entire purpose is to draw attention away from the holy truther faith's fact free claims, and supplant it with inane rambling.

 
At 17 March, 2012 13:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 March, 2012 13:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

GMS wrote, "...As always their entire purpose is to draw attention away from the holy truther faith's fact free claims, and supplant it with inane rambling."

Bingo!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Thread hijacking is NOT debate.

And that's precisely why Pat and James should ban them. After all, if Pat and James can remove commercial spam from the blog, they can remove Captain Crotchrot and Mr. Homonym's off-topic [cough] "commentary," too.

Incidentally, does anyone find it somewhat disturbing that Pat and James are committed to their "open blog" policy, while they're unwilling to follow through on their promise to put a stop to the thread hijacking?

So, ultimately, who did they decide to throw under the bus? The troofers or the debunkers?

I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

And remember, I'm just asking questions.

 
At 17 March, 2012 19:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

What's a 9/11 blog without a few hijackers...or alleged hijackers...

 
At 18 March, 2012 02:52, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Incidentally, does anyone find it somewhat disturbing that Pat and James are committed to their "open blog" policy, while they're unwilling to follow through on their promise to put a stop to the thread hijacking?

No. Village idiot posts constitute maybe 10% of the content here. The rest consists of responses to the idiots. Remember when Pat asked us to stop feeding trolls? Did we?

And assuming the idiots were banned, what the hell are we supposed to talk about? 9/11 debunking is as much about human behavior as it is about physical science. Here we get to interact with real-live weirdos.

For a nice serious 9/11 science blog where immaturity is not tolerated and staying on-topic is mandatory, try JREF.

 
At 18 March, 2012 13:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wouldn't last two days at JREF.

 
At 18 March, 2012 14:47, Blogger Ian said...

Ian wouldn't last two days at JREF.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, I've humiliated him so many times that this is all he can come back with.

Brian, if I wanted to have a serious discussion, I would do so at JREF. I just find it much more entertaining to point out all the humiliating facts about you and then watching you squeal and call me "it".

I mean, serious discussion or no serious discussion, it doesn't change the fact that the widows have no questions.

 
At 18 March, 2012 15:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian wouldn't last two days at JREF."

I'm signing up right now. Ian should too.

We're not the clowns advancing theories involving the Bush Administration, invisible thermite,mythical Afghan pipelines, the CIA, and genetically modified attack baboons.

We'll be just fine.

 
At 18 March, 2012 16:26, Blogger Billman said...

Does noone else see that in his own way, Brian just kind of endorsed this place?

 
At 18 March, 2012 18:07, Blogger Oystein said...

Thanks for the update, linking to my blog :)

 
At 19 March, 2012 09:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Oystein concluded that 1 chip he's never seen or analyzed looks like another substance he's never seen or analyzed, conclusively ruling out that it's not among a third set of substances he's never seen or analyzed. I bet his fantasy DSC didn't show any exothermic reactions either, right? Amazing!

Who needs labs or experiments? We have fantascientists like Oystein and GB! Not to mention credulous idiots who believe them, like Pat and James. Where would 'debunking' be without them?

 
At 19 March, 2012 09:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Who needs labs or experiments?

Truthers apparently don't. ScootleRoyale has written fifty billion words explaining why it's logically impossible for the red chips (which he's never examined) to be anything except an undescribed nanothermite. Do you want the guys on your side making such retarded assertions on your behalf? Shouldn't you be bugging him instead?

 
At 19 March, 2012 11:11, Blogger John said...

Oystein concluded that 1 chip he's never seen or analyzed looks like another substance he's never seen or analyzed, conclusively ruling out that it's not among a third set of substances he's never seen or analyzed.

Have you seen or analyzed any of these?

Didn't think so.

Keep going, though. Each post you make just gets you further and further away from a new investigation.

 
At 19 March, 2012 12:52, Blogger Oystein said...

Pat wrote: "1 chip he's never seen or analyzed looks like another substance he's never seen or analyzed, conclusively ruling out that it's not among a third set of substances he's never seen or analyzed"

Well Pat, that's why we have scientists who PUBLISH. I don't need to go to the south pole and the equator myself to know which one is colder than the other.

Same here: Luckily, Harrit e.al as well as Millette PUBLISHED analytical data, and NIST PUBLISHED the recipes for two primer paints. Other scientists have PUBLISHED what pigments or look and behave like when analysed with microscopes, electron beams, x-rays, DSC etc. With all that data PUBLISHED, you and I can (sufficient scientific education assumed) go ahead and check which conclusions are the best.

If you think that only people who have themselves seen the chips can have an opinion on them, why then dies Kevin Ryan not give any chips to Chris Mohr?

 
At 19 March, 2012 13:16, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Save your breath Oystein, cowardly isn't interested i facts. The "truth" is all he needs.

 
At 19 March, 2012 13:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"If you think that only people who have themselves seen the chips can have an opinion on them..."

Oh, so you're just sharing your opinion? Why should your opinion mean any more to anyone than Harrit's? He has more experience working with the dust than you do, mein freund. Can you tell us what makes you more qualified? Is it also your opinion that Millette should have done the DSC? Why do you think he didn't?

 
At 19 March, 2012 14:10, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, so you're just sharing your opinion? Why should your opinion mean any more to anyone than Harrit's?

All you've ever done is share your opinion, and for some strange reason, you think we should take yours seriously, despite the fact that you're a zit-faced scrawny virgin who can't hold down a job at Burger King.

 
At 19 March, 2012 14:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Is it also your opinion that Millette should have done the DSC? Why do you think he didn't?

Say he did that test tomorrow and the stuff didn't explode. Would that rule out thermite in your mind?

 
At 19 March, 2012 14:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 March, 2012 14:33, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Judging by the quality of responses so far, it looks like the usual gaggle of idiots here has as much as they usually do: nothing.

Pat: do something about that, would you?

 
At 19 March, 2012 14:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Judging by the quality of responses so far,

In other words, you admit that the DSC test is a straw man, and the results wouldn't sway you. You simply believe in thermite because your credulous mind cannot unlearn it.

Do you still deny that you're Scott "Gifted Child" Burnan?

 
At 19 March, 2012 15:46, Blogger Ian said...

Judging by the quality of responses so far, it looks like the usual gaggle of idiots here has as much as they usually do: nothing.

Poor zit-face. I've humiliated him again.

 
At 20 March, 2012 08:35, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

HAHAHAHAHA Now Millette is taking his ball and going home: he won't do any DSC, and suggests that Mohr find another lab.

That's okay, because we have Oystein to tell us that it's a special kind of explosive paint that heats up beyond the melting point of steel, and produces droplets of melted iron...but it's not suspicious. Just look at the graphs! Thank Oystein! You've debunked...NOTHING!

NEXT!

 
At 20 March, 2012 09:58, Blogger Oystein said...

Pat Cowardly says: "it's a special kind of explosive paint"

What makes you think it's explosive?


Also: Suppose Millette did a DSC test.
Suppose the result was the SAME as Farrer's - what would that prove?
Suppose the result was DIFFERENT from Farrer's - what would that prove?

What DO Farrer's DSC results (the curves and the energy density derived from them) provem, in your mind?

 
At 20 March, 2012 11:41, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Nice try, Oystein, but your sophistry is a silly distraction. We don't have to "suppose" anything: we can use the available facts and evidence.

You probably wouldn't understand, though, since everything you say is based on supposition ('origin of the paint that was found...'). Your bias is as clear to everyone as Pat's (a provable pseudoskeptic, unable to defend his beliefs), you just purport (and fail) to justify it scientifically.

Good luck fixing that.

 
At 20 March, 2012 12:21, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I don't do the best debunking out there." -JamesB

Or any, for that matter.

"I just link to it"
-JamesB

" I will show that the chips that Harrit proved to not be Tnemec look very much like LaClede Standard Primer." Oystein

WOW James! Someone said the chips "LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE" something!

THAT's the best debunking you can link to, and it doesn't even debunk anything? What convinced YOU in that link, that you felt it was so conclusive, James?

Don't forget to run away and not answer.

 
At 20 March, 2012 14:28, Blogger Oystein said...

Pat Cowardly said: "We don't have to "suppose" anything: we can use the available facts and evidence."
Except that DSC results from Millette's chips isn't available yet. But you seem to demand that such a DSC test be done
A) Ist this true that you think Millette should do a DSC test on his chips?
But if you want DSC results, you must have an idea how any results can lead to conclusions. I gave you a complete enumeration of the possibilities:
- Millette's results are same as Farrer's
- Millette's results are different from Farrer's
Your dodge seems to indicate that you don't know what conclusions would draw from ANY possible result.
B) Is it true that you wouldn't know what you would conclude if Millette's DSC curves were the same as Farrer's?
C) Is it true that you wouldn't know what you would conclude if Millette's DSC curves were different from Farrer's?

However, I did ask a question on which facts exist that you can employ to answer. So why did you dodge that question, too? Let me repeat it for you:

D) What DO Farrer's DSC results (the curves and the energy density derived from them) prove?


Let me make a prediction: Pat Cowardly is clueless and will answer 0 of 4 questions.

 
At 20 March, 2012 14:33, Blogger Oystein said...

Pat Cowardly said: "it doesn't even debunk anything? What convinced YOU in that link, that you felt it was so conclusive, James?"

May I answer? Just to show Pat Cowardly how questions are answered.

Your claim "it doesn't even debunk anything" is false. The conclusion that Harrit's red gray chips are mist likely LaClede paint debunks two claims at once:

1. That the chips are not primer. This is debunked merely by pointing out that Harrit ONLY rules out Tnemec, but is unaware that the Tnemec is only one of at least 2, but likely more different kinds of primers. Harrit's alleged proof is thus demonstravly incomplete and thus invalid. DEBUNKED

2. It debunks the claim that ther red-gray chips are thermitic. LaClede paint contains no elemental Al, therefore they are not active aluminothermic material. DEBUNKED.

 
At 20 March, 2012 14:54, Blogger John said...

Oystein, FYI no matter what you post, Cowardly will just come back with some variation of the following:

"Is that the best you can do? You've debunked nothing! Just like fat Pat Curley! Ha! What a bunch of losers!"

At this point he should just cut and paste the above he's getting so predictable.

He never provides links to sources, while demanding links from everyone else. When you provide him with those links, he just mocks the source. Then he insults you with some lame pun. Apparently, he seems to think that the whole question surrounding 9/11 will be decided by who wins the debate about paint chips and iron microspheres on this blog. As if the whole world is looking at these posts.

If you want to debate him, fine. But that's what you're gonna get.

Me, I just remind him that there won't be another investigation no matter what he does. He usually shuts up after that.

 
At 20 March, 2012 15:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oystein, FYI no matter what you post, Cowardly will just come back with some variation of the following:

John is correct. Cowardly's single trick is boasting that facts cannot change his mind. He's basically a younger version of the TimeCube guy.

 
At 21 March, 2012 12:55, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

It debunks the claim that ther red-gray chips are thermitic. LaClede paint contains no elemental Al, therefore they are not active aluminothermic material. DEBUNKED.
-Boystein

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! And your obvious ASSumption/conclusion that the chips are LaClede is proved by what, exactly (other than your opinion that they look similar)? Didn't Sunstealer insist they were kaolinite at some point (also without examining the samples)? What happened to that "debunker" meme?

Maybe Pat and James are too stupid to see what you did there in #2, but real critical thinkers don't let bald assertions slip by like that. Where's the DSC? What's your "explanation" as to why Jim Millette failed to perform the test?

 
At 21 March, 2012 13:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Where's the DSC? What's your "explanation" as to why Jim Millette failed to perform the test?

Same reason you don't do a pregnancy test on a man. Your argument is invalid.

 
At 21 March, 2012 17:17, Blogger Oystein said...

Cowardly wrote: "your obvious ASSumption/conclusion that the chips are LaClede is proved by what, exactly...? Didn't Sunstealer insist they were kaolinite at some point ...?"

You're almost cute in your ignorance :)
Please explain real quick: What is kaolinite, and where would you typically find it?

 
At 22 March, 2012 09:12, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Oystein, maybe it's your poor English skills, but you don't seem to understand what "debunk" means.
You said this:

"...chips are not primer. This is debunked merely by pointing out that Harrit ONLY rules out Tnemec, but is unaware that the Tnemec is only one of at least 2, but likely more different kinds of primers....demonstravly (sic) incomplete and thus invalid. DEBUNKED"

Do you realize you're lying, or is it another carelessly stupid Oystein blunder again? Do you really think you've "debunked" the idea that the chips aren't primer simply because more than 1 primer was used? Don't forget that YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHIPS ARE, and are just assuming and asserting based on your opinion. That's not debunking.

You haven't shown Harrit's findings to be false at all. It's just more pseudoskepticism meant to sound plausible to people who already share your opinion. To Oystein, all you need to 'debunk' something is to say "I think it looks like primer!!!11! but trust me: we don't need the DSC!!"

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home