Gage's next debate

[Oystein]

I requested their Form 990 on Monday or tuesday IIRC.

To date, I have yet to hear a peep out of them.

I am looking to find a contact for Richard Gage, like an email.

Anybody got that?

If they refuse to provide, I will be contacting the IRS for sanctions.

The 2009 form is stamped "Received Jul 01 2010".
Signatures are dated 6/28/10

 

[Oystein]

A sample was sent to a scientist in France but that scientist did not find nano-thermite. It is believed that the sample was tampered with.

The Final Catch-All denial of all truthers: "The evidence disproves my conclusions, so obviously the evidence must be tampered"

Here is a video of chemical engineer Mark Bazile who studied WTC dust that he obtained independently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

Mark Basile most certainly did not do an independent conformation. He is named in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of the Harrit e.al. paper (page 30), as is the one known "independent peer-reviewer", David Griscom. You call that science, we call that fraud.

Although other qualified scientist must repeat Dr. Harrit et al's thermite experiments...

What do you mean by "other qualified scientists"? No qualified scientists has yet worked on that stuff! Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley and Larsen are all totally outside of their field of expertise, and Harrit proves by his many mistakes and his failure to use qualified methods that he is either unqualified, or a fraud. Basile is not a scientist.

for their results to become science fact,

Wow congrats, Chris! You just agreed that the results are NOT science facts

no one has published a rebuttal in a journal and all the ballyhoo about the Bentham Journal not being valid is a bunch worthless sour grapes denial.

You have seen all the proof to know that Bentham does not publish a respectable peer-reviewed science journal. The proof is:
- Two of its editors-in-chief resigned on realizing they were just a fig-leave and not involved in the peer-review process
- Since the science world became aware of the fraud around the Harrit paper, that journal has not published another paper. It was a very poor choice of journal to start with
- The one known peer-revier, David Griscom, is a buddy of the Harrit-bunch and acknowledged as having helped them. This is a perversion of all standards of scientific peer-review.

Dr. Harrit has published in numerous journals over the years. He is qualified and credible as are Dr. Steven Jones who has published in Scientific American; and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the BYU microscopy departement.

It is hard to tell if people lie or are seriously deluded. Yes, on paper, Harrit is probably somewhat qualified. But he should have known that professional labs could have done the job quicker, cheaper, and standardized. So Harrit has either gone whacko somewhere and needs help, or he has made a conscious decision to build his reputation on a lie.
Jones is a nuclear physicist. He brings no relevant qualification to the team.
Farrer is a damned good microscopist - his images are flawless (actually, I don't know if they are really good, but let's pretend). What he is very bad at is DSC calorimetry (he did it for the first time in life there) and EDS spectoscropy. He is also so unqualified that he doesn't know that these methods would be unconclusive and that X-rax diffraction would be the choice. You mislable him as "director". He is merely the manager of one lab. Do you not have your facts straight, or is this another truther lie, told by you, Chris? Why did you make this mistake?

 

[NoahFence]

Correct, the RJ Lee Group was looking for asbestos, lead and the like. The chips did not contain hazardous stuff so they would not have been studied.

How would they know the chips didn't contain hazardous stuff if they didn't study them?

 

[NoahFence]

3. Richard Gage refusing to pay a couple of thousand bucks for a real new investigation (again, we already know Gage is not paying for research. In Fiscal Year 2009, AE911truth payed
- US$87,574 for "Sales Production"
- US$75,450 for Richard's private purse
- US$54,942 for "Operations"
- US$21,941 for "Event Production
- US$0 for "Scientific Research")

Do you have a link to that info? First time I'm seeing it, and quite frankly, it's pretty damning. I'd love to add another bullet to my common sense gun....

 

[Oystein]

Do you have a link to that info? First time I'm seeing it, and quite frankly, it's pretty damning. I'd love to add another bullet to my common sense gun....

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/26-1532493/architects-engineers-9-11-truth.aspx
You need to register for free and login to access the Forms 990 tab.

 

[NoahFence]

LOL

So much for their assertion that they're looking for another investigation

 

[Oystein]

LOL

So much for their assertion that they're looking for another investigation

The most damning proof that they are not out for a new investigation is of course the fact that the Petition is now in it's fifth years, expenses to promote it are probably approaching the first million, and nobody knows if and when it will be submitted to Congress.

All signers of that "Petition" have been conned by that fraudulent preamble that claims this is a petition addressed at Congress. After 5 five years, we can be confident that this is a lie.

 

[Christopher7]

So where is LashL?
The last 10 posts are completely off topic. This is supposed to be about the debate, remember? My bad for responding to an off topic post.

This happens when y'all run out of double talk to deny the obvious. Don't bother talking about me, I didn't write the RJ Lee Group report. Claiming that they made a mistake is silly in the extreme.

RJ Lee Group report - 2003
Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).

RJ Lee Group report - 2004
Pg 12
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.


This is scientific conformation of temperatures in excess of 2800^oF during the collapse. The iron spheres and lead covered fibers were forced into places where normal dust does not go by the dust cloud produced by the collapses of the Trade Towers. The consistency of the lead and iron in the dust throughout and on top of the 500 foot high Bankers Trust building confirms that they were not deposited after the collapse. [see post #695 for details]


There is no reason to reject this scientific proof other than the inability to accept and deal with the ramifications.

 

[The Almond]

So where is LashL?
The last 10 posts are completely off topic. This is supposed to be about the debate, remember? My bad for responding to an off topic post.

This happens when y'all run out of double talk to deny the obvious. Don't bother talking about me, I didn't write the RJ Lee Group report. Claiming that they made a mistake is silly in the extreme.

So, let me get this straight: You don't want to talk about the RJ Lee group report, but you RE-post this:

RJ Lee Group report - 2003
[...]

And you want everyone to pretend that you've had the last word on the subject? I can assure you, no one is falling for that nonsense. Let's recap:

First, you made this gaff:

More silliness. Instruments don't make assumptions. An EDS spectrograph shows what the instrument detects.

Which was shown to be you simply speaking authoritatively on a subject you know nothing about. That's a trait common to both truthers and outright slobbering idiots, so, good for you.

Then you went on to defend your untenable position by presenting two spectra, one from me, and one from the RJ Lee report. This, you claim, proves that the spheres were pure iron, not iron oxide. When it was pointed out to you that the spectrum from the RJ Lee report proved that the iron rich particles DID HAVE OXYGEN IN THEM, you said:

Please learn how to read. The caption says "iron particle" not "iron oxide particle". There is a small amount of oxygen, perhaps from the iron sphere rusting a little.

So, despite having said:

An EDS spectrograph shows what the instrument detects.

You now decide that, since the spectrum does not prove your point, the caption is actually what describes the material. You repeat this point several more times, but no one jumps up and says, "By Jove, you're right! Captions are all we need to determine if oxygen is present. 9/11 was an inside jobzzz11!!!"

Having argued yourself into a logical corner, you want to end the debate. That's fine, but you're not ending it by deciding that you're right. You goofed, you talked about things you didn't have a clue about, and now you need to man up and admit that you are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

So, let me get this straight: You don't want to talk about the RJ Lee group report

You now decide that, since the spectrum does not prove your point

Wrong

the caption is actually what describes the material

Right

I also noted that the text on pg 17 describing what is in Figure 21 and Figure 22 also states that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. Furthermore, I checked with a PhD chemist and he/she confirmed that the sphere is indeed iron and NOT iron oxide.

Your claiming that the RJ Lee Group made a mistake is pure denial. It's time for YOU to man up and admit that you are wrong but that will never happen.

 

[DGM]

Wrong

Right

I also noted that the text on pg 17 describing what is in Figure 21 and Figure 22 also states that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. Furthermore, I checked with a PhD chemist and he/she confirmed that the sphere is indeed iron and NOT iron oxide.

Your claiming that the RJ Lee Group made a mistake is pure denial. It's time for YOU to man up and admit that you are wrong but that will never happen.

You forgot this part:

More silliness. Instruments don't make assumptions. An EDS spectrograph shows what the instrument detects.

First, you made this gaff:


Which was shown to be you simply speaking authoritatively on a subject you know nothing about. That's a trait common to both truthers and outright slobbering idiots, so, good for you.

Then you went on to defend your untenable position by presenting two spectra, one from me, and one from the RJ Lee report. This, you claim, proves that the spheres were pure iron, not iron oxide. When it was pointed out to you that the spectrum from the RJ Lee report proved that the iron rich particles DID HAVE OXYGEN IN THEM, you said:
.

So what is it, the text or the data?

You said it, man up.

 

[Sunstealer]

Wrong

Right

I also noted that the text on pg 17 describing what is in Figure 21 and Figure 22 also states that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. Furthermore, I checked with a PhD chemist and he/she confirmed that the sphere is indeed iron and NOT iron oxide.

Your claiming that the RJ Lee Group made a mistake is pure denial. It's time for YOU to man up and admit that you are wrong but that will never happen.

Kanaya-Okayama Depth Penetration Formula =1.59µm

aaaaa0.0276 A E^1.67 R= --------------------------
aaaaaZ^0.89p

Where

R= depth penetration (µm)
A= atomic weight (g/mol) [55.847]
E= Beam energy (Kv) [20]
Z= atomic number [26]
p= density (g/cm³) [7.9]

C7 - would you mind plugging the numbers for Fe and Kv (taken from fig 21 of the RJ Lee report you quote ) into the above equation please. I need to make sure I've done the calculation right. I've provided the numbers for Fe and beam energy from the RJ Lee report (fig 21 that you've quoted) in these brackets [] so it should only take about 5 minutes.

Could you also do one more thing for me please?

Please compare that calculated number with the radius of the particle in the RJ Lee report you've quoted here. You can measure that just by increasing the screen size in your browser and measuring particle diameter against the scale of 10µm in the bottom right hand corner using a ruler and then dividing by 2. About a 3 minute job.

What's the ratio of R to particle size radius?

Thanks.

P.S. Oh sorry - I should say that it's actually rather important because it will show whether the particle is iron or iron oxide.

 

[Christopher7]

I need to make sure I've done the calculation right. I've provided the numbers for Fe and beam energy from the RJ Lee report (fig 21 that you've quoted) in these brackets [] so it should only take about 5 minutes.

You are trying to say that you know better than the RJ Lee Group and that is hogwash. Both the text and the caption say that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. The spectrum for iron oxide has a huge "O" spike while the spectrum for the iron sphere has a small amount. The difference is obvious.

It is abundantly clear that you will deny any scientific data that proves the official narrative false. You persist in arguing about the sphere and ignore the point.

Iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse.

 

[chrismohr]

Gage's organization

Fiscal Year 2009, AE911truth payed
- US$87,574 for "Sales Production"
- US$75,450 for Richard's private purse
- US$54,942 for "Operations"
- US$21,941 for "Event Production.
- US$0 for "Scientific Research")

In the course of this whole debate thing I've had a fair amount of contact with Richard Gage and other top people in the 911 Truth movement. I don't know Richard that well and I know nothing about his organization, but I am familiar with small nonprofits and also what the IRS looks for when they investigate nonprofits and this ain't it. My journalist friends would say this looks like your typical small educational foundation, where the "educator" gets a middle class salary and 2/3 or more of the money goes to other stuff like "Sales Production": printing books and DVDs; "Operations" looks like office expenses and may include contract labor to mail out stuff, postage, phone, insurance, website management, etc.; "Event production"... well, Richard went to something like ten cities in the last month, so if AE911's mission is to educate the public about 911 CD, Richard has fulfilled their mission in spades for not much money.

It would look a lot worse if 80% of the money went to Richard. And every year or so a bigger foundation like Greg Mortensen's Three Cups of Tea group that supposedly built 100 schools in Afghanistan with lots of international donations gets caught building almost nothing (BBC went to 30 of these places and found only one operating school; the rest were abandoned buildings or someone else's school!). And what was that Christian group that raised millions and then housed one kid in a wheelchair in a big mansion they bought? These kinds of things are REALLY bad, a waste of the altruistic energies of our whole society.

AE911 is a small educational group with one extremely committed leader and a bunch of volunteers. Structurally, I would guess they are like thousands of other little nonprofits out there. And I DO know Richard well enough to know he is totally sincere and committed to his 911 Truth crusade. He is intelligent, likeable, and I have told him I am baffled that we can see things so completely differently. No explanation I have ever heard has ever rung true. Insanity? Nope. Fraud? Nope. I've given up trying to understand. What a long strange trip it's been!

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #8

C7 is arguing that the iron microspheres were created at very high temps, around 2800F. Iron-RICH spheres might have iron oxide, but even iron oxide has a very high melting point (I think I read something like 2600F).

Maybe this went right by me in all these "heated" technical discussions, but at what temperature do you believe these iron-rich spheres were created and why?

 

[beachnut]

...
Iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse.

Rockwool.

Iron and lead can be in Rockwool, mineral wool, and mineral wool is manufactured at temperature to 3000 F. The report found lead on rockwool. (mineral wool)

The iron spheres can come from fly ash, and that is in the report.

The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash. http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...DustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdfhttp://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...DustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf​

Fly ash consists primarily of silica, aluminum, iron and calcium oxides, and magnesium, potassium, sodium, titanium, titanium and sulfur.

 

[Christopher7]

C7 is arguing that the iron microspheres were created at very high temps, around 2800F. Iron-RICH spheres might have iron oxide, but even iron oxide has a very high melting point (I think I read something like 2600F).

Maybe this went right by me in all these "heated" technical discussions, but at what temperature do you believe these iron-rich spheres were created and why?

Slight correction: I am not "arguing" that iron was melted and the spheres created, I am quoting the RJ Lee report that clearly states:
"iron . . . melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles . . . Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).

[steel melts at 2750^oF - iron melts at 2800^oF - iron oxide melts at 2850^oF]

 

[Christopher7]

Iron and lead can be in Rockwool, mineral wool, and mineral wool is manufactured at temperature to 3000 F. The report found lead on rockwool. (mineral wool)

That's NOT what the report said.
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool."

The iron spheres can come from fly ash, and that is in the report.

You have it backwards. Fly ash was created during the event.
"The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash. The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form residual spherical particles."

 

[Oystein]

Wrong

Right

Rene Margritte: Ceci n'est pas une pipe

I also noted that the text on pg 17 describing what is in Figure 21 and Figure 22 also states that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. Furthermore, I checked with a PhD chemist and he/she confirmed that the sphere is indeed iron and NOT iron oxide.

I strongly suspect you just made that up. Name and phone number of that PhD chemist, so I can call him check whether he ever saw that EDS chart?

Your claiming that the RJ Lee Group made a mistake is pure denial. It's time for YOU to man up and admit that you are wrong but that will never happen.

No. The presence of O proves oxide. No two ways about it.

 

[Oystein]

You are trying to say that you know better than the RJ Lee Group and that is hogwash. Both the text and the caption say that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. The spectrum for iron oxide has a huge "O" spike while the spectrum for the iron sphere has a small amount. The difference is obvious.

It is abundantly clear that you will deny any scientific data that proves the official narrative false. You persist in arguing about the sphere and ignore the point.

Iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse.

Are you saying the O in the spectrum is not there?
Or are you saying Sunstealer's method is invalid?
Or are you saying "an authority has spoken, my belief in it is unshakable by reason and argument"?

Must be one of the three. Please elaborate!