Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Marokkaan]

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.

No i dont discuss with u about an peer reviewed article. The only thing u can convince with it, is to place a link of a peer reviewed article, that refutes the article.

Its simple as that.

Thats the problem of debunkers. They dont like science research. They like to chitchat without thinking about the rules of science research.

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.

ITs indeed ridiculous, to use numbers as example.

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

Lets not talk about the nist report and the peer review proces LOL

But if u have problems with the peer reviewed article and u dont believe it.
Than u have just more reasons, to start a refute article.

The people who wrote the article, are not britney spears or the local dentist.

No those people have experience with succesful placing peer reviewed articles in their history.

So you cant say, its nutcase and they are crazy and put them away. That too naive.

You have to take this people serious, so refute the article too proof you have right.

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

You really think when she stayed, the fake journal would never be accepted ? LOL

Its nice talking about bentham. But im curious about NIST, tell me more about it

 

[Marokkaan]

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

Im from holland, so my english is not perfect. Sometimes i think dutch while i am typing in english.

You are not competent to judge.

Indeed, i cant judge about scientist nor their researches. I can only judge, when i have the proof from the scientist.

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

Steven jones has the right, as long his article is judged by other scientist.

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

since when i denied he is a chemist???

Read again, and read what his experiences are with nano technology

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?

I guess i have to conclude you dont have the proof. So you just accusing somebody.

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

Its your opinion i dont care. I think you dont respect scientists and science research.

 

[DGM]

No i dont discuss with u about an peer reviewed article. The only thing u can convince with it, is to place a link of a peer reviewed article, that refutes the article.

OK, We'll be fair. Let's all wait for this article to sink in with the academic world. When should we expect them to notice it? Maybe if they pay again, someones bound to notice this time.

 

[Marokkaan]

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.

You can hold a long discussion about it.

But tell me what are the red/grey chips they found.

 

[alienentity]

The people who wrote the article, are not britney spears or the local dentist.

...


You really think when she stayed, the fake journal would never be accepted ? LOL

Its nice talking about bentham. But im curious about NIST, tell me more about it

Can you tell us if, prior to submitting the 'Thermitic Materials..' paper to Bentham, where it was NOT reviewed by the editor in chief (for some reason which you cannot explain), ANY of the authors had chaired ANY position in nanothermite research; or had previously published ANY paper on nanothermite; or had lectured at ANY recognized conference on nanothermite?

Can you please submit ANY documentation to show ANY of the above? Because I don't think you can, and I don't think the authors of the 'Thermitic Materials' paper ARE EXPERTS in NANOTHERMITE.

Please show the required evidence to prove me wrong.

ps we're not done talking about Bentham yet, and the blatant failure of peer-review. I'm this is just the start of your problems.

 

[Marokkaan]

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!

U really think, Kevin Ryan, is filming his self and lie to people ? LOL.

Just tell me why u cant use micron sized alumium particles.

 

[alienentity]

Big question for 9/11 Truthers who support the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper - What positions in nanothermite research do any of the authors hold in any major university?

So far I come up with: 0 out of 9

 

[alienentity]

U really think, Kevin Ryan, is filming his self and lie to people ? LOL.

Just tell me why u cant use micron sized alumium particles.

'Lie' is a strong word. I'd use 'mislead' instead.

We'll have to see what happens when Mr. Ryan tries to get his research published in a recognized journal. Maybe they'll find it convincing, maybe misleading. Who knows?

 

[Marokkaan]

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.

And how u think about the paper, so me and others thinks about the NIST reports

The NIST reports even tells that not everything was investigated. One of the reasons, was because they dont want to spend taxmoney LOL

Its strange, how you have 100 percent trust in the results of NIST, while NIST does not have the 100 percent.

 

[alienentity]

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about Chris' videos, not Kevin Ryan's work.

There is already a great thread on 'nanothermite' and that's where marokkaan should take his claims and arguments (such that they are).

 

[bill smith]

Im from holland, so my english is not perfect. Sometimes i think dutch while i am typing in english.


Indeed, i cant judge about scientist nor their researches. I can only judge, when i have the proof from the scientist.






Steven jones has the right, as long his article is judged by other scientist.





since when i denied he is a chemist???

Read again, and read what his experiences are with nano technology





I guess i have to conclude you dont have the proof. So you just accusing somebody.



Its your opinion i dont care. I think you dont respect scientists and science research.

'

Are there any interesting Truth sites in Holland ? Do you have some links ?

 

[Marokkaan]

Point me to any peer reviewed papers that refutes a flat earth. Do you see how it works now?

Its a ridiculous example. Try better...

Its a science research, so we ask you to come with science research to refute.

If u dont respect the laws of science research, than u cant be taken serious.

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.[/

Primer paint contains magnesium wich have not been found. So there goes your theory about primer paint...

 

[alienentity]

Its a ridiculous example. Try better...

Its a science research, so we ask you to come with science research to refute.

If u dont respect the laws of science research, than u cant be taken serious.



Primer paint contains magnesium wich have not been found. So there goes your theory about primer paint...

You need to take this to another thread.

 

[twinstead]

Its a ridiculous example. Try better...

Its a science research, so we ask you to come with science research to refute.

If u dont respect the laws of science research, than u cant be taken serious.

It appears that the world's scientific and engineering communities are pretty much unimpressed with your "science research". Do you have an explanation for that?

 

[Marokkaan]

Big question for 9/11 Truthers who support the 'Active Thermitic Materials' paper - What positions in nanothermite research do any of the authors hold in any major university?

So far I come up with: 0 out of 9

What a ridiculous question.

Can u tell me what the red/grey chips are?

 

[Marokkaan]

You need to take this to another thread.

I told chris mohr, he is spoiling his energy with his research.

Because he dont have the knowledge to talk about it.

I told him to pay attention, to collect experts who can research and try to refute the shocking results of the other experts.

 

[grandmastershek]

Steven jones has the right, as long his article is judged by other scientist.

Steven Jones has an inordinate amount of burden of proof. He has repeatedly dodged scrutiny.

1. When Brigham Young University stated they would undertake an academic review of his work he resigned.

2. He created his own peer review process (The Journal of 9/11 Studies) which includes only research by truthers, and refuses to accept any dissenting view points.

3. He has refused to provide samples to non-truthers for corroboration.

4. He submits his work to fake journals who employ the worst standards in academia (a subject you have dodged repeatedly).

5. His nanothermite research was peer reviewed by at least 1 truther who was part of Jones's previously mentioned intellectual circle-**** beforehand, and Jones tried to pretend wasn't a truther.

6. The people he defers to as corroborating his work have yet to publish their work in any real journal. Youtube doesn't count.

 

[Marokkaan]

It appears that the world's scientific and engineering communities are pretty much unimpressed with your "science research". Do you have an explanation for that?

Well well, i guess you have the proof, that the whole world and al those communities are against the researches that have been done.

And that all those people also read the NIST reports

 

[Sunstealer]

You can hold a long discussion about it.

But tell me what are the red/grey chips they found.

Paint. Thermite nano or not does not contain kaolin particles which is what is observed in the paper.

 

[tsig]

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

ur prose stinks