Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[sheeplesnshills]

When i look to ur avatar, i guess yes the same age like u

Avatar? I watched that again last night....cool CGI.

 

[Marokkaan]

With all due respect Chandler is only a high school physics teacher. A job I could easy get but since it pays only half what I earn.....
he has been shown before to have been just plain wrong in much, if not all his work on 911 to date, and if he was my kids teacher I'd have him moved out of his class. Simply put...he is incompetent.

Lol.

Its funny how you talk about people, because they dont think the same as you.

But did you know that this silly teacher (LOL) helped NIST, to change a little bit in the final report .

But ok. What do u think about mark basile, jef farrer and niels harrit?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thats the problem. U see it as fantasy, while experts are seeing it as an eye-opener.

The overwhelming majority do not. Please name your "experts"

Your opinion doesnt bother me. What bothers me is science

Good then you'll know that Thermite is a non starter as a reson for the WTC tower failures..

Show me some proof please.

google "extinguishing burning landfill" and you'll get a clue.



.

 

[Marokkaan]

That not how science works.....scientists have better things to do than refute non papers, non peer reviewed in non journals.

Can u tell me please what a peer reviewed article is.

And ofcourse scientists have better things to do.

Mark basile, farrer, kevin ryan, niels harrit, etcetera they have better things to do. But they chose to make time for it.

I wonder why they want do it. Why spend time to fantasies?

Just like u said scientist have better things to do......

 

[Marokkaan]

The overwhelming majority do not. Please name your "experts"

Its simple for me, go to the website of ae911truth.

Do u have a big list of names who are independent researchers and wrote peer-reviewed articles that refutes the researches from ae911truth experts.

Im curious man!!!

Good then you'll know that Thermite is a non starter as a reson for the WTC tower failures..

I would like to say that, but there are experts that found nano-thermite.

So we want to know, how its possible, nanothermite is found in the wtc dust.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

[Q

Strong argument.....

do have any reputable source think that bentham was a real journal? and how do you explain it being spoofed so easily and its editor (s) resigning in disgust?

Bentham is what is call a Vanity journal....you pay to get your work published and the only real requirement is that you have the money. Jones et al was NOT peer reviewed in any meaningful way.

Well, here you have an eyeopener.

I dont have 15 post, so i have to use spaces.

Watch and learn

http : // www . you tube . com/ watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[/QUOTE]


and where were the remains of all those cuts????? the trigger mechanisms, the ones that didn't go off?

and since its been shown by real experts that fire alone will cause the failure why bother?

 

[DGM]

When i look to ur avatar, i guess yes the same age like u

Like that? It's my "bee-dunker" poster "ergo" gave me. I find it hard to believe you're in your 50's.


Anyway, Goodbye.

 

[dafydd]

Its simple for me, go to the website of ae911truth.

Do u have a big list of names who are independent researchers and wrote peer-reviewed articles that refutes the researches from ae911truth experts.

Im curious man!!!



I would like to say that, but there are experts that found nano-thermite.

So we want to know, how its possible, nanothermite is found in the wtc dust.

Impossible.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Lol.

Its funny how you talk about people, because they dont think the same as you.

yet its ok when he does the same to Chris. you are just a hypocrite.

But did you know that this silly teacher (LOL) helped NIST, to change a little bit in the final report .

the 1G stuff? who cares? NIST was just humoring the twoofers. There are mechanism that would allow that to occur no matter how the collapse was initiated. Its certainly no indication of CD.

But ok. What do u think about mark basile, jef farrer and niels harrit?

I try not to. They are an embarrassment to science. Mark was not part of the report, Jef is a lab manager NOT a scientist and Harrit is a con man.

 

[dafydd]

Can u tell me please what a peer reviewed article is.

And ofcourse scientists have better things to do.

Mark basile, farrer, kevin ryan, niels harrit, etcetera they have better things to do. But they chose to make time for it.

I wonder why they want do it. Why spend time to fantasies?
Just like u said scientist have better things to do......

Because they are nutcases.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Its simple for me, go to the website of ae911truth.

that is a list of signatures only. None of whom have verified Jones et al
and few, if any, are even qualified to do so.

Do u have a big list of names who are independent researchers and wrote peer-reviewed articles that refutes the researches from ae911truth experts.

Im curious man!!!

People don't waste time refuting that the moon is made of green cheese either or that the sun goes around the earth.

I would like to say that, but there are experts that found nano-thermite.

yet they failed utterly to prove that...so many mistakes in one paper.

So we want to know, how its possible, nanothermite is found in the wtc dust.

It wasn't.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Because they are nutcases.

and some, like gage and harrit make money from doing so.

 

[Marokkaan]

[Q

do have any reputable source think that bentham was a real journal? and how do you explain it being spoofed so easily and its editor (s) resigning in disgust?

Bentham is what is call a Vanity journal....you pay to get your work published and the only real requirement is that you have the money. Jones et al was NOT peer reviewed in any meaningful way.

Its your opinion it doesnt bother me. But i think its peer reviewed.

And now the question. is there somebody who has refuted the article, with a peer reviewed article.

and where were the remains of all those cuts????? the trigger mechanisms, the ones that didn't go off?

and since its been shown by real experts that fire alone will cause the failure why bother?

Do u saw the video clip?, i dont think so. Because the questions you ask, does not make any sense...

NIST did experiments with fire.

Read this.


Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance
of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test
specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately
2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team
was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation
of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues
raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September
11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems,
were substantially different from the conditions in the test
furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established
that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large
gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location
on September 11” [4].

 

[Marokkaan]

I try not to. They are an embarrassment to science. Mark was not part of the report, Jef is a lab manager NOT a scientist and Harrit is a con man.

Strong argument. Nice to hear it from a forumposter.

Mark basile found also the red/gray chips.

Is mark basile also crazy???


Look to the history of jef, its not nice from u to talk about somebody like him.

Background
Managing the electron microscopy facility for the Department of Physics and Astronomy since Oct 2003. Formerly with TexSEM Laboratories Inc. (TSL/EDAX) as Senior Applications Scientist. Received a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota. Studied solid-state reactions and migration of interfaces in oxide and nitride materials systems. Received a B.S. in Physics from Brigham Young University. Current research includes nanoparticle characterization, solid-state reactions, characterization of thermitic reactions, grain-boundary migration, transmission electron microscopy, orientation imaging microscopy.


Show me the proof that niels harrit is a fraudster.

Because they are nutcases.

Strong argument

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would like to say that, but there are experts that found nano-thermite.

So we want to know, how its possible, nanothermite is found in the wtc dust.

People who say they are experts say that they found nano-thermite in the dust. They published their results, which, among other things, show that their supposed thermite reaction released more energy than it is possible for a thermite reaction to release. In contrast, experimental data on nanothermites indicate that they release typically only 40% of the maximum energy that a thermite reaction can release. Therefore, we may draw two conclusions:

(1) It was not nanothermite.

(2) They are not experts.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

that is a list of signatures only. None of whom have verified Jones et al
and few, if any, are even qualified to do so.

Spend a little more research please. U can also watch the journalstudies website.

People don't waste time refuting that the moon is made of green cheese either or that the sun goes around the earth.

No proof me the evidence, that the majority of scienctists are well known, about the reports of nist/fema etcetera.

yet they failed utterly to prove that...so many mistakes in one paper.

This is big news. So you have a peer reviewed paper that refutes the paper ??

The science tells us is that if you want to refute a theory/result from a science research. You have to refute it with science, and not with emotional opinions

It wasn't.

Omg. You are really sure from what u are telling to me. So i guess you have the article for me!!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Its your opinion it doesnt bother me. But i think its peer reviewed.

The Editor-in-Chief of the magazine it was published in doesn't share your opinion.

It's probably never been refuted because very few people take the journal seriously enough to have even read it.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

People who say they are experts say that they found nano-thermite in the dust. They published their results, which, among other things, show that their supposed thermite reaction released more energy than it is possible for a thermite reaction to release. In contrast, experimental data on nanothermites indicate that they release typically only 40% of the maximum energy that a thermite reaction can release. Therefore, we may draw two conclusions:

(1) It was not nanothermite.

(2) They are not experts.

Dave

You maybe have the peer-reviewed article, where you get your conclusion from.

You are the expert. Or did your opinion comes from another expert?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Its your opinion it doesnt bother me. But i think its peer reviewed.

Not opinion. Its factual that they were spoofed.

And now the question. is there somebody who has refuted the article, with a peer reviewed article.

what would they try to refute something that was not proven to accepted scientific standards to start with? There are so may cool things to study withou wasting time and money on one the originators didn't even bother to do properly to start with.

Do u saw the video clip?, i dont think so. Because the questions you ask, does not make any sense...

I did and I can't help your lack of comprehension.

NIST did experiments with fire.

Read this.

Fire Endurance Tests, No Failure
NIST: “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance
of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test
specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately
2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team
was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation
of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues
raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September
11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems,
were substantially different from the conditions in the test
furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established
that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large
gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of
time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location
on September 11” [4].

And what do you think that says? I guessing that its not what it does.

 

[grandmastershek]

Read and learn about bentham:

A major STM journal publisher of 106 online and print journals...

LOL! Did you seriously just cite their own PR page? Wow.
Yes, read and learn.

2 separate editors of Open Physical Chemistry resigned: Marie Pileni & Lucio Fryman
1 Advisory Board Member: Marc Williams
1 Editor of Open Information Science: Bambang Parmanto
1 Editor of Open Behavioral Science: John Furedy

They spam academics with no expertise in the respective fields to both edit and write; even to the wrong people.

And the coupe de grace.