Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Marokkaan]

The Editor-in-Chief of the magazine it was published in "]doesn't share your opinion[/URL].

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

Dave

Ah that woman

The woman specialised in nanotechnology that denies she knows something about the knowledge of nano-thermite LOL

This is her history

OTHER ACTIVITIES
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)

LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)


But if we use your logic, we cant trust the editor in chief. Because you also dont trust bentham LOL

So your argument is not strong.

The term conflict of interest is very important, when i think about Pileni.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Strong argument. Nice to hear it from a forumposter.

Thanks

Mark basile found also the red/gray chips.

So?

Is mark basile also crazy???

possibly? why do you ask?

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.

LOL he was lab manager at the time and I've actually communicated with him about the tests. Jones did them, Jones had sole custody of the dust and since it was test of the materials CHEMISTRY neither he nor jones was remotely qualified. Jones retired before he was fired by BYU and Farrer was allowed to stay as it was obvious he had been duped.

Show me the proof that niels harrit is a fraudster.

He makes money from his lies which makes him a fraud.

Strong argument

Thanks again

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ah that woman

The term conflict of interest is very important, when i think about Pileni.

but not when you think of Gage, Griffen, harrit etc.....interesting.

By the way do you know what Jones was studying at BYU before the thermite joke? Pre-Columbian Horses! He was trying to show that the mormon bible was literally true

Does he still sound sane to you?

 

[Marokkaan]

Not opinion. Its factual that they were spoofed.

No it isnt. Its your opinion

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

.

Again you are using you're own opinion. The fact is. It is a peer-reviewed article. If it wasnt it would not stay at the bentham website.

NIST did experiments with fire.

Read this.

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

.I just only want to say, that NIST with experiment could not show, that fire alone could cause failure.

So there is no proof. Fire could cause failure to the buildings.

p.s. for the next time, pay a little bit attention to quoting a poster. I had to copy paste your sentences

 

[chrismohr]

I will be traveling tomorrow to NYC to see some friends, and have downloaded all of your videos to my Ipad, and will watch them while traveling.

Will post here and let you know what I think.

Thank you for taking the time to do this, as it was much needed. Clear, concise, and to the point.

Cheers!!

~Tri

Thanks Tri,

You may be the only person to compliment my 20 videos for being concise!

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

My conclusion that 7.5 is a larger number then 4? No, I've never seen that conclusion stated in a peer-reviewed article. Would you, then, like to argue that 7.5 is a smaller number than 4?

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

Even if my expertise were limited to an ability to count, it would be clear to me that Harrit et al are wrong.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

But if we use your logic, we cant trust the editor in chief. Because you also dont trust bentham LOL

If you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, feel free; let's assume that the entire debacle discredits both Bentham and its editor-in-chief. So how does that support your claim that the paper was properly peer-reviewed?

Dave

 

[grandmastershek]

Ah that woman

The woman specialised in nanotechnology that denies she knows something about the knowledge of nano-thermite LOL

This is her history...

Anyone who went to college knows that just because you specialize in 1 area of a field doesn't make you a specialist in all of it.

 

[Marokkaan]

Thanks



So?



possibly? why do you ask?




Thanks again

Mark basile founded also nano thermite.

What do u think about him


No you have right. U are qualified, to notice that its not nano-thermite.

But an expert(farrer) experienced with nano particles is not qualified to test the red/grey chips hehe

U accuse niels harrit. I guess you have the proof.

But i asked you several times for proof for you accusations about others. But still i dont see any proof. So i dont expect a lot of you

 

[chrismohr]

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?

Mark Basile cooked up some red-gray chips without even using a calorimeter to measure the energy output. His experiment was worse than the original one reported in Bentham. As for Niels Harritt, look at my video on thermites in the dust (Part 12 I think). Niels Harritt's reply to my question is staggering to me. Harritt has scientific credentials but as I recall not in this area.

I like Kevin Ryan. His knowledge of chemistry obviously dwarfs mine, and while I disagree with him we've kept up a respectful dialogue. Now I've challenged him to submit his dust samples to an independent lab. Let's see what happens.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

what part of his post didn't you understand. The material tested could not possibly have been any kind of thermite as it released too much energy (fact of chemistry)

and NONE of those conducting the tests were qualified to do so, which would explain the basic errors they made.

The fools even burned it in air! Thermite does not require air to burn so should have been tested in an inert atmosphere (argon or similar)

They tested and burned paint chips..........and got the results you would expect. thats all.

 

[Marokkaan]

My conclusion that 7.5 is a larger number then 4? No, I've never seen that conclusion stated in a peer-reviewed article. Would you, then, like to argue that 7.5 is a smaller number than 4?

Strong argument, the debunkers are good with there strong arguments

Well, if u think that 7,5 is a larger number then 4. Please write a peer reviewed article about it.

Even if my expertise were limited to an ability to count, it would be clear to me that Harrit et al are wrong.

Dave

Ofcourse, but you're not respecting the laws of science-research

If you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, feel free; let's assume that the entire debacle discredits both Bentham and its editor-in-chief. So how does that support your claim that the paper was properly peer-reviewed?

Dave

well dont use the argument about somebody who left bentham, while u dont trust bentham.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Mark basile founded also nano thermite.

What do u think about him

He didn't and I consider him incompetent

No you have right. U are qualified, to notice that its not nano-thermite.

It has none of the required characteristics.

But an expert(farrer) experienced with nano particles is not qualified to test the red/grey chips hehe

he is a Physicist, not a chemist. Different discipline.

U accuse niels harrit. I guess you have the proof.

LOL look how many TV etc shows he has been on. Do you imagine he is doing that for free?

But i asked you several times for proof for you accusations about others. But still i dont see any proof. So i dont expect a lot of you

And I expect even less of you. Your "proof" is nothing of the kind and its YOU that is making the ludicrous assertions and so its you that needs to prove them, not me disprove them.

 

[chrismohr]

Bill you asked me if I disagreed with aspects of the official story awhile back.

Yes:

1.) There is no official story of anything after collapse initiation. I was on my own to find credible explanations of lateral ejection, squibs, near freefall and actual freefall of buildings, etc. I woul have liked to see NIST do more research on all this.

2.) I agree with several scientists who assert that NIST's thermal expansion theory didn't also cover the fact that the sagging beams then contracted when they cooled after the fire moved on, and that subsequent thermal contraction may have been more of a factor than NIST thought it was.

3.) NIST people have told me that if Kevin Ryan et al submit their dust samples to an independent lab and they find thermites, there would still be a chain of custody issue. That is true, but if by some miracle thermites were found in Kevin Ryan's dust samples I would challenge NIST or RJ Lee to come up with a dust sample that had an ironclad chain of custody for another test.

4.) I wish real scientists would debate the top 9/11 researchers in their fields. I took on the debate but I used journalistic skills; I'm not a scientist.

Hope this helps.

After watching my videos with 235 reasons to doubt controlled demolition, did any of my arguments give you reason to doubt your position?

 

[Marokkaan]

Mark Basile cooked up some red-gray chips without even using a calorimeter to measure the energy output. His experiment was worse than the original one reported in Bentham. As for Niels Harritt, look at my video on thermites in the dust (Part 12 I think). Niels Harritt's reply to my question is staggering to me. Harritt has scientific credentials but as I recall not in this area.

I like Kevin Ryan. His knowledge of chemistry obviously dwarfs mine, and while I disagree with him we've kept up a respectful dialogue. Now I've challenged him to submit his dust samples to an independent lab. Let's see what happens.

Im sorry i dont take your comments to mark basile and niels harrit and kevin ryan serious. You dont have the knowledge to talk about it.

I agree with just one thing with you and that is the dust samples need to be searched by a lot more people and also in an indepent lab with the necessary tools. And thats what mark basile and the others also want.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

4.) I wish real scientists would debate the top 9/11 researchers in their fields. I took on the debate but I used journalistic skills; I'm not a scientist.

Chris, there is nothing for a real scientist to debate. the twoofers are to all intents and purposes a new religion (which has many sects already) and there simply is no common terms of reference under which one could debate with them. They do not even understand the scientific concepts involved.
Its like Dawkins debating Creationism, he wins every time but the opposition does not even understand when they have lost.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Im sorry i dont take your comments to mark basile and niels harrit and kevin ryan serious. You dont have the knowledge to talk about it.

and you do? How? I have a college education that included both physics and chemistry and 29 year career in Engineering. And you?

I agree with just one thing with you and that is the dust samples need to be searched by a lot more people and also in an indepent lab with the necessary tools. And thats what mark basile and the others also want.

so why don't they do it???? and how do fix the chain of custody issue?. your video showed that anyone can make nano thermite (if indeed he actually did) so since the samples are now in the hands of devout believers in the thermite theory so any sample that has passed through them is worthless as evidence as they may have tainted it.

 

[Marokkaan]

And I expect even less of you. Your "proof" is nothing of the kind and its YOU that is making the ludicrous assertions and so its you that needs to prove them, not me disprove them.

Why you dont quote good? its very annoying.

No mark basile is not incompetent, u are incompetent to talk about mark basile.

And u also incompetent to talk about if its nanothermite or not.

Again read:

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.


Is that your proof about niels harrit LOL because he wants to pay attention to his research by going to tv shows, thats making him a fraudster.

Come on, this is childish behaviour....

You are telling that niels harrit is a fraudster, well tell show with proof. If u say a than also say b.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Strong argument, the debunkers are good with there strong arguments

Thus carefully glossing over the fact that you don't have a good counter-argument to the observation, documented in the Harrit et al paper, that their samples release more than the maximum possible energy from a thermite reaction, and therefore cannot be thermite.

Well, if u think that 7,5 is a larger number then 4. Please write a peer reviewed article about it.

The ridiculous point I was trying to make is that you are demanding that 7.5 is less than 4 unless a peer-reviewed article says so.

Ofcourse, but you're not respecting the laws of science-research

No, I'm not. The paper was not adequately peer reviewed, a fact that is well documented. It is therefore of no weight.

well dont use the argument about somebody who left bentham, while u dont trust bentham.

That's a remarkably stupid comment. I don't believe that Bentham followed the normal peer-review process because the editor-in-chief, who was responsible for ensuring that the paper was fully peer-reviewed, stated that she hadn't seen the paper prior to publication. You're effectively saying that, if that argument's correct, then I can't use it. That's absurd.

But let's suppose we can't accept the testimony of the editor-in-chief, on this or any other subject. We can't, therefore, assume that any article published under her tenure was peer-reviewed properly, because she was responsible for peer-review, and she can't be trusted. So how do you like that cleft stick? Either the editor-in-chief is untrustworthy, in which case we can't assume that the Harrit et al paper was properly peer reviewed, or the editor-in-chief is trustworthy, in which case we can be certain that it wasn't. In either case, we can ignore it, as all reputable scientists have. Or, if we choose, we can read it, and notice that its results contradict the conclusions its authors claim to draw from them.

And that, whatever absurd sophistries the truth movement dream up to try to invalidate it, is the actual state of the world here. Nobody who matters takes any of it seriously.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why you dont quote good? its very annoying.

quote good??? want to try that again in English?

No mark basile is not incompetent, u are incompetent to talk about mark basile.

You are not competent to judge.

And u also incompetent to talk about if its nanothermite or not.

I didn't say I was, merely that Jones et all were not.

Again read:

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.

Right, read it again.....he still isn't a chemist.

Is that your proof about niels harrit LOL because he wants to pay attention to his research by going to tv shows, thats making him a fraudster.

Come on, this is childish behaviour....

You are telling that niels harrit is a fraudster, well tell show with proof. If u say a than also say b.

The report is a lie (not peer reviewed etc) He tells lies, he makes money from those lies = he is a fraud. What part of that didn't you grasp?

Of course the alternative is that he is insane. Do you prefer that?