Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
sheeplesnshills said:
actually he comes over as a rather sad pathetic little man trying to be something he no longer is.
Has he published a paper on his finding....if not, why not? How long can it take?????:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter what you think or I think. It matters what the Readers think, I find him very convincing. You would have to discredit him a lot more to change my mind. I imagine it's the same with the Readers.
 
Marokkaan said:
Watch the newest experiment from chemist kevin ryan how the production and ignition of nanothermite is performed.

ht tp://w ww.yout ube. com/watch?feature =player_embedded&v=O66UyGNrmSI
Click to expand...
Read my sig - bentham paper has already been ripped to shreds here. It's utter rubbish, was never peer-reviewed and has never been published in a respectable journal. So the first part of your video is a lie.
 
Marokkaan said:
Watch the newest experiment from chemist kevin ryan how the production and ignition of nanothermite is performed.

ht tp://w ww.yout ube. com/watch?feature =player_embedded&v=O66UyGNrmSI
Click to expand...
At 7.25 - "So now we are ready to add about 6g of powdered aluminum. This is micron sized aluminum in this case."

So that will be micron sized will it. 100nm = 1µm. So he's not making nanothermite when he's using micron sized aluminium particles. Do'h!
 
Marokkaan said:
But ok. What do u think about mark basile, jef farrer and niels harrit?
Click to expand...
They are incompetent. They are blinded by their ideology. The bentham paper is easily the worst "scientific" paper I have ever read. I would expect better from undergraduates.
 
bill smith said:
It doesn't really matter what you think or I think. It matters what the Readers think, I find him very convincing. You would have to discredit him a lot more to change my mind. I imagine it's the same with the Readers.
Click to expand...

readers? what readers? and when is he going to publish his paper?:confused:
 
Marokkaan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Point me to any peer reviewed papers that refutes a flat earth. Do you see how it works now?

No they didn't find thermite they found paint. samples a-d are an unknown paint and the MEK soaked ship was actually Tnemec red primer paint.
 
Sunstealer said:
At 7.25 - "So now we are ready to add about 6g of powdered aluminum. This is micron sized aluminum in this case."

So that will be micron sized will it. 100nm = 1µm. So he's not making nanothermite when he's using micron sized aluminium particles. Do'h!
Click to expand...

um.....Isn't 1000nm = 1um?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanometre

and the smallest I can find is 10um so he is out by 3 maybe 4 orders of magnitude:eek:


so why does he lie about what he is making?
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
readers? what readers? and when is he going to publish his paper?:confused:
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to. There is an existing and uncontested peer reviewed published paper that arose from a two-year, 8 scientist study that confirms that the chips in the WTC dust are thermitic material. Some of this thermitic material is actually unreacted and can still be brought to ignition at the classic nanothermite ignition point of 430 degrees.
Mark Basile is simply more expert confirmation.
 
Last edited:
Marokkaan said:
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..
Click to expand...
I do.

Marokkaan said:
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.
Click to expand...
No they don't. If they had wnated that they would have got independent confirmation before the paper was published. They have not sent any of their samples to an independent lab. It would cost peanuts to have better analytical techniques carried out. It would take less than a month to do. Look up FTIR and XRD.
 
bill smith said:
He doesn't need to. There is an existing and uncontested
Click to expand...

lie #1 its been contested in many fora

peer reviewed paper
Click to expand...

Lie #2 It was not peer reviewed

that arose from a two-year, 8 scientist study
Click to expand...

lie #3 not all eight were scientists and only one was operating in his field and he was not the one doing the actual tests.

that confirms that the chips in the WTC dust are thermitic material.
Click to expand...

lie #4 Actually they confirmed they were not thermitic (to much energy) and they didn't even show they would react in an oxygen free atmosphere

Some of this thermitic material is actually unreacted
Click to expand...

lie #5 see above

andcan still be brought to ignition at the classic nanothermite ignition point of 430 degerees.
Click to expand...

just like paint except paint would require oxygen to burn whilst thermite would not so how could they have made such an elementary mistake as to test in air? Oh thats right they were not working in their own fields were they? or perhaps they knew fine it was paint.......

Mark Basile is simply more confirmation.
Click to expand...

all we have from him is a statement. Wheres his paper?????
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
Yes sorry I've made a typo, however nanotechnology is considered to be 100nm or less.
Click to expand...


so perhaps only one order of magnitude if we are being really generous :)

still its not Nanothermite is it? The Al is too big and we are not told how small the Iron oxide particles are. :(
 
sheeplesnshills said:
lie #1 its been contested in many fora



Lie #2 It was not peer reviewed



lie #3 not all eight were scientists and only one was operating in his field and he was not the one doing the actual tests.



lie #4 Actually they confirmed they were not thermitic (to much energy) and they didn't even show they would react in an oxygen free atmosphere



lie #5 see above



just like paint except paint would require oxygen to burn whilst thermite would not so how could they have made such an elementary mistake as to test in air? Oh thats right they were not working in their own fields were they? or perhaps they knew fine it was paint.......



all we have from him is a statement. Wheres his paper?????
Click to expand...

' It's been contested in many fora ' Like the jref maybe.What a load of rubbish. If you want to contest it publish your own peer reviewed paper. That hasn't happened in- how many years is it now ? Therefore the paper is uncontested on it's proof and is the official definitive work on the subject . End-of-story.

The paper was peer reviewed at Bentam (see attached website) Still a highly successful peer review journal with Nobel laureates published there I believe.
http://www.benthamscience.com/ Bentham Website

Point three..I can't be bothered

Watch the video (above) from Mark Basile if you want to know about the paint.


'that confirms that the chips in the WTC dust are thermitic material' You quoted me as saying in my last post but it is of course a shabby forgery as any poster can see at a glance. Not that I neccessarily disagree with the content but I stand on my right to say it myself..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills said:
so perhaps only one order of magnitude if we are being really generous :)

still its not Nanothermite is it? The Al is too big and we are not told how small the Iron oxide particles are. :(
Click to expand...
It's not a sol gel process either. It's all a bit Blue Peter - here's one I made earlier!

Blue Peter was a childrens TV series in the UK. They'd often show children how to make stuff tat and to save time, like when something has to be glued they'd skip to the next or last stage with the immortal words " here's one I made earlier".

This super sekrit nano thermite was so hot that it didn't manage to melt through the pyrex beaker (MP 821°C) :D
 
Sunstealer said:
I do.

No they don't. If they had wnated that they would have got independent confirmation before the paper was published. They have not sent any of their samples to an independent lab. It would cost peanuts to have better analytical techniques carried out. It would take less than a month to do. Look up FTIR and XRD.
Click to expand...

I remember when Steven Jones announced that he was going to send the chips for independent analysis at the Boston lecture in december 2007 I was disappointed when he didn't. But eventually I worked out the reason and it was a a simple one and the correct way to go.

If Jones had sent his samples at that time to say Princeton or RJ Lee a simple call from the Whitehouse would have guaranteed that no nanothermite would be found. With such 'reputable' bodies rejecting Jones's findings the discovery would have been discredited and instantly dead in the water,

So he made the sensible decision to get as much scientific confirmation on the outside or 'alternative' scientific circuit as possible while conducting his detailed two- year study of the chips, resulting in the well known peer reviewed (and as yet uncontested) paper that has resulted in a capturing of more and more of the public imagination.

It won't vbe so easy for these so-called reputable labs to casually reject his work now. They are free to try. They won't though.

I hope Jones makes a big fuss and forces them to respond. I hope he does it soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4 Boston Lecture 2007
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom