Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[bill smith]

Do you read? With around hundred papers published in legitimate peer reviewed journals on 911 and plenty more professional commentary about the collapses there is ZERO professional support for your ideas and you fringe bunch of nobodies.

You know what turned me onto 9/11 in the beginning ? The National Geographic special that said the Towers were supported exclusively by the exterior walls. All kinds of bells started ringing. It took a while to get the scale of the operation into my head. I thought my head would burst with the immensity and the utter outrageousness of it all. The 'Big Lie' brought to life in front of me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dont talk about 9/11 commission thats the biggeste mistake they ever maded.lol

And yet no truthers can ever come up with anything significant that they can demonstrate is wrong with their report. Now, you may think that simply ignoring and laughing at anything you disagree with is a sensible way to seek the truth or persuade others to agree with your beliefs, but the negligible achievements of the truth movement in the nearly ten years since the attacks clearly demonstrate that it's not an effective one.

If u respect science, u know that when there are gaps in a research its for sure u cant represent it as the truth.

Your lack of understanding of scientific enquiry is breathtaking.

Why you ignore the fact, that they payed 40 million to bill clinton and 16 million to all the reports of NIST?????

Because it's idiotic.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

Err it's right there buddy. There is a peak at 1.26KeV - that can only be the k-alpha peak of magnesium. It's black and white it is there. Just because your heroes made a mistake doesn't mean you can say it doesn't contain Mg when it's plainly obvious it does.

What is the peak at 1.26KeV? Show how you identify it.

Well for starters there is an Mg peak in fig 17 so you need to have a look at that.

Secondly the figs 16-18 are spot probe scans of certain high concentration areas of the sample. There isn't any reason to expect to see Ca in those regions.

If you look at fig 18 they have labelled the 1 KeV peak as Na - where has this come from? There is overlap between Na and Zn at this point so it's important to label as both especially as Fig 14 does not differentiate.

The whole MEK soaking experiment is nonsense - it's inconclusive. Why didn't they use FTIR and XRD for identification instead?

Basile is not independent.

From Harrit et al paper

Oops seems you are a little gullible.

Basile can't read a EDX spectrum - Mg is right there in Fig 14.

Well of course you can't, it completely destroys your delusion and you don't want to part with it for some reason. I've shown with data that the most likely material that those platelets are is kaolinite. Why don't you argue about the shapes and the EDX spectra?

Care to come up with a process that produces hexagonal platelets like that with that composition? Why would you use that shape in nano-thermite? It's a stupid shape to use because the surface area is increased even further over a sphere and hence there would be even less aluminium to react because the majority of the particle would be Al2O3. It's pointless - a sphere is a far more efficient shape.

Why on earth would I write a paper about a paper that doesn't exist in the scientific community? The Harrit et al paper doesn't register except on truther forums and then on debunker skeptic sites. The paper is a joke - seriously. It is only cited by those who have zero understanding and are bamboozled by the shiny graphs.

But you couldn't refute any of the work could you? Nope you just shouted about peer review.

I just forgot one picture.

Your wishful thoughts are nice, but i prefer science research instead of some forumposts full of accusations.

If u dont take them serious, then why you spend your time on it??????

 

[Marokkaan]

And yet no truthers can ever come up with anything significant that they can demonstrate is wrong with their report. Now, you may think that simply ignoring and laughing at anything you disagree with is a sensible way to seek the truth or persuade others to agree with your beliefs, but the negligible achievements of the truth movement in the nearly ten years since the attacks clearly demonstrate that it's not an effective one.

Ok i just place a scientific article, i hope u will read it.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ProfScottWhyCheneyMustTestify.pdf

And some criticism about the 9/11 commission report, you can read here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

Good luck with reading.

Your lack of understanding of scientific enquiry is breathtaking.

Strong argument

Because it's idiotic.

Dave

And again strong argument. You like it i see

You just want to ignore, that for bill clinton 40 million was payed. And NIST only 16 million.

And NIST did not researched everything because it costs money LOL

And i dont bother you with the costs of the wars, that could have been prevented if they really knew who are quilty for the 9/11 attacks.

3 trillion dollar for the war and 16 million for NIST LOL

 

[Sunstealer]

I just forgot one picture.
[qimg]http://i56.tinypic.com/2upwxtu.jpg[/qimg]

Your wishful thoughts are nice, but i prefer science research instead of some forumposts full of accusations.

If u dont take them serious, then why you spend your time on it??????

Hahahaha Do you realise that I already know about that EDX spectrum? Do you also realise that that spectrum is tnemec red primer paint? Do you also realise that I have shown you that spectrum before and compared it to the one in fig 14? Here have another try.

Fig 14 is the top - I have labelled the Mg peak in the correct place. Go and look at the paper and look at Fig 14 for confirmation.

The fig below is from your source.

You do understand don't you that I am not saying that samples a-d in the harrit et al paper are tnemec red primer paint? I am saying that Fig 14 is. Funny how harrit et al never put that spectrum into the paper - they didn't have it of course, it was only when Jones got a sample from a 9/11 memorial sometime later.

 

[Marokkaan]

Hahahaha Do you realise that I already know about that EDX spectrum? Do you also realise that that spectrum is tnemec red primer paint? Do you also realise that I have shown you that spectrum before and compared it to the one in fig 14? Here have another try.

Fig 14 is the top - I have labelled the Mg peak in the correct place. Go and look at the paper and look at Fig 14 for confirmation.

The fig below is from your source.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4378[/qimg]

You do understand don't you that I am not saying that samples a-d in the harrit et al paper are tnemec red primer paint? I am saying that Fig 14 is. Funny how harrit et al never put that spectrum into the paper - they didn't have it of course, it was only when Jones got a sample from a 9/11 memorial sometime later.

Lol you are repeating.

Instead of repeating, could you give the answer, why u pay attention to the paper, and have the time to discuss on a forum. But dont have the time to write a peer reviewed article to refute the article

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok i just place a scientific article, i hope u will read it.

Since it wasn't peer reviewed, wouldn't your advice to me be not to bother?

And some criticism about the 9/11 commission report, you can read here

All of which is confined to the scope, motivations and approach of the 9/11 Commission. Conspicuous by its absence is any suggestion that their conclusions were significantly inaccurate.

You just want to ignore, that for bill clinton 40 million was payed. And NIST only 16 million.

And NIST did not researched everything because it costs money LOL

It's a worthless non sequitur. Just because one absurd and stupid decision was made in the past, you're now demanding that more absurd and stupid decisions should be made. To use your own words, "strong argument".

And i dont bother you with the costs of the wars, that could have been prevented if they really knew who are quilty for the 9/11 attacks.

We do really know who was guilty of the 9/11 attacks, and knew it perfectly well before NIST produced a single word. The NIST report does not form a significant part of the evidence showing that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks outside of truther fantasies.

And it's unlikely that anything could have prevented the Iraq war, which never had much to do with the 9/11 attacks anyway. The Bush administration was so committed to regime change in Iraq that they'd have found an excuse eventually, whatever happened.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Instead of repeating, could you give the answer, why u pay attention to the paper, and have the time to discuss on a forum. But dont have the time to write a peer reviewed article to refute the article

Since you haven't written a peer reviewed paper in which you ask the question, why should anyone bother answering it?

Dave

 

[Sunstealer]

Lol you are repeating.

Instead of repeating, could you give the answer, why u pay attention to the paper, and have the time to discuss on a forum. But dont have the time to write a peer reviewed article to refute the article

So you have no argument against what I've just put up and your only come back is "peer review", "peer review", "peer review".

You are the peer review parrot.

The harrit et al paper was not peer reviewed, it was not published in any respectful journal or scientific publication.

I imagine the conversation with a proper journal.

Sunstealer: Hi, I'd like to submit a paper for peer review please.
Journal: Yes certainly, what's it about.
Sunstealer: Well it's a rebuttal to a non-peer reviewed paper published in a vanity journal that says that an incendiary called thermite was found in the dust after the attack at the WTC on 9/11.
Journal: [snigger] Who are the authors?
Sunstealer: Harrit et al
Journal: Never heard of them. I don't think our publication would publish a rebuttal because the original isn't a bona fide paper. Our readers will not have read the paper and it has no merit and is not of interest to our readers and therefore not in the journal's interest to publish your rebuttal.
Sunstealer: Thanks I knew you would say that, but someone on the internet says I should publish. Sorry to bother you.

 

[Marokkaan]

Since it wasn't peer reviewed, wouldn't your advice to me be not to bother?

It is peer reviewed But hey i dont care, if u dont want to read, then you dont do that

All of which is confined to the scope, motivations and approach of the 9/11 Commission. Conspicuous by its absence is any suggestion that their conclusions were significantly inaccurate.

Just like the forumdebunkposters here

It's a worthless non sequitur. Just because one absurd and stupid decision was made in the past, you're now demanding that more absurd and stupid decisions should be made. To use your own words, "strong argument".

Oh now you're saying it was stupid LOL.

Can u tell why it was stupid?

We do really know who was guilty of the 9/11 attacks, and knew it perfectly well before NIST produced a single word. The NIST report does not form a significant part of the evidence showing that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks outside of truther fantasies.

No you dont, there was no trial, to judge the guilty people.

If the NIST report investigated everything, like perhaps explosives. The story could changed and the 19 hijackers would be possible not more quilty

And it's unlikely that anything could have prevented the Iraq war, which never had much to do with the 9/11 attacks anyway. The Bush administration was so committed to regime change in Iraq that they'd have found an excuse eventually, whatever happened.

You are really naive and misinformed.

Just an example

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

How is it possible to judge osama bin laden did it, if there wasnt a trial to judge it.

America did it also with saddam hussain, they judged without a trial that saddam had weapons of mass destruction.


We have the court system that tells, when a judge has condemned the suspect, the suspect will still be suspect and not quilty.

 

[Marokkaan]

So you have no argument against what I've just put up and your only come back is "peer review", "peer review", "peer review".

You are the peer review parrot.

The harrit et al paper was not peer reviewed, it was not published in any respectful journal or scientific publication.

I imagine the conversation with a proper journal.

Sunstealer: Hi, I'd like to submit a paper for peer review please.
Journal: Yes certainly, what's it about.
Sunstealer: Well it's a rebuttal to a non-peer reviewed paper published in a vanity journal that says that an incendiary called thermite was found in the dust after the attack at the WTC on 9/11.
Journal: [snigger] Who are the authors?
Sunstealer: Harrit et al
Journal: Never heard of them. I don't think our publication would publish a rebuttal because the original isn't a bona fide paper. Our readers will not have read the paper and it has no merit and is not of interest to our readers and therefore not in the journal's interest to publish your rebuttal.
Sunstealer: Thanks I knew you would say that, but someone on the internet says I should publish. Sorry to bother you.

Start with a beginning, just place your article at the bentham journal publisher

 

[twinstead]

I never realized that one of the functions of a useless vanity journal was for irrational conspiracy theorists to pretend that their pet theory is peer reviewed, and then refuse to listen to any critiques of it because the critiques aren't peer reviewed.

Then they act all smug like they're winning some kind of important debate, all the while they are just a member of a delightful little cult arguing on a relatively obscure internet forum.

It must be so fun to be a truther.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yeah the first clue that official 9/11 story was nonsense was when the explanations of 9/11 came from Popular Mechanics and National Geographic.

So you don't think things should be put in a format that people can understand?

Interesting.

Please tell us where either were wrong.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I didn't get to watch them all I'm afraid. Sorry about that...I know you put a lot of hard work in there. I also believe that you truly believe the government story. Can you reccommend one or two of your strongest clips so that I can have a look at those ? Links would be great.

You didn't get to watch them all? Who stopped you??

 

[DGM]

Start with a beginning, just place your article at the bentham journal publisher

Why would he pay to publish a rebuttal to a paper that had absolutely no impact at all? The only people that mention it are people that are demonstrability ignorant of the science it supposedly contains.

Now, if you could show some impact in the academic circles it was supposed to appeal to.

 

[bill smith]

I never realized that one of the functions of a useless vanity journal was for irrational conspiracy theorists to pretend that their pet theory is peer reviewed, and then refuse to listen to any critiques of it because the critiques aren't peer reviewed.

Then they act all smug like they're winning some kind of important debate, all the while they are just a member of a delightful little cult arguing on a relatively obscure internet forum.

It must be so fun to be a truther.

It wasn't always so. We had to endure a lot. But it was essential to continue for the sake of the Truth.

 

[uke2se]

I wasn't always. We had to endure a lot. But it was essential to continue for the sake of the Twoof.

ftfy

 

[Marokkaan]

Why would he pay to publish a rebuttal to a paper that had absolutely no impact at all? The only people that mention it are people that are demonstrability ignorant of the science it supposedly contains.

Now, if you could show some impact in the academic circles it was supposed to appeal to.

Ofcourse you have to pay, its serious ****...

But he can make a begin, and just write a paper. And then search attention the writers from the nanothermite article wich he want to refute and ask for a reply. Or other experts.

 

[uke2se]

Ofcourse you have to pay, its serious ****...

In serious academic journals you don't have to pay.

 

[chrismohr]

I didn't get to watch them all I'm afraid. Sorry about that...I know you put a lot of hard work in there. I also believe that you truly believe the government story. Can you reccommend one or two of your strongest clips so that I can have a look at those ? Links would be great.

Hi Bill,

NIST did not confirm to me that they have pristine dust samples, but I believe they exist in the government. 9/11 Truth researcher Chris Sarns also told me that RJ Lee has dust samples with an ironclad chain of custody. The first step would be to get some dust from Kevin Ryan tested. I believe it will test negative, as even a 9/11 Truth chemist discovered when he tested it (see my videos on the subject). In the unlikely event it tests positive, the chain of custody argument will be thrown out there immediately, and that's when finding (subpoeaning?) a dust sample from the government or RJ Lee would be the next step.

Here are links once again to all my YouTube videos


part 0 introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
part 1 how collapses initiated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WQdmpdM_g
part 2 Richard's ten reasons for natural collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5C8YiXHhE
part 3 history of fire collapses http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 4 symmetrical/freefall http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik
part 5 lateral ejection of steel and squibs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2538YN1l1nA
part 6 pulverized concrete and steel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD0zg1OwBSo
part 7 eyewitness accounts of explosions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aB-Apjqef8
part 8 molten steel and iron in debris http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7OxQXuMPs4&feature=related
part 9 iron microspheres http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU
part 10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OpzRcYqlKQ
part 11a thermitics in the dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYja1f-Tefc
part 11b thermitics in the dust continued http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb8Q1UYdW4I&feature=related
part 12 conclusion twin towers portion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJhy2gW0jFA&feature=related
part 13 Building 7 NIST introduction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv06LjVGC6Q&feature=related
part 14 Size of Building 7 fires http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJUDQVqbMto
part 15 Path of Leasrt Resistance Building 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvZ_3JVjHeo
part 16 Eyewitness Accounts re Building 7; Foreknowledge of Destruction http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4
part 17 Size of Conspiracy, How Many People Would it Take? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iya9P5TRd-0
part 18 Building 7 freefall collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkbDyAJuirg
part 19 A New Investigation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnYfB4OaDM
part 20 Concluding Remarks: Waking Up from what Richard Gage calls "the nightmare of 9/11;" a heartflet appeal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8l7j6h9elQ


Go for the thermitics ones 11a and b, or #3 history of collapses by fire. Whatever we're fighting about on this thread, it's probably in this YouTube series!