Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[DGM]

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.

So, what has been the impact of this "paper". Did anyone even read it?

 

[Marokkaan]

So, what has been the impact of this "paper". Did anyone even read it?

No i only read it...

 

[chrismohr]

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.

As a former publisher and editor of a classical music magazine, maybe I can add a little to the vanity publisher discussion. Vanity presses have less of a reputation, of course, but they are also one place for an author to get a start. Many very popular novels started as vanity projects (or self-published) and were picked up by the majors when they were successful.

In the publish-or-perish environment of academia, these Bentham Journals may be a place for grad students and non-tenured professors to publish scientific works. I doubt they exist solely for pseudoscience, and the fact that the editor quit in disgust after discovering that the thermite paper was released without her knowledge tells us she had at least SOME concern for scientific integrity.

This is conjecture, but I wonder if Bentham serves entry-level researchers well by giving them an outlet for publication. No, it's not peer-reviewed (or the editor would have at least known the piece was being published). But I wouldn't write off a Bentham article solely on the fact that it appeared in that journal. I am much more impressed with Sunstealer's comparison of "thermitics" to paint chips and the poor job Harritt et al did with the spectographs.

Bottom line, get the dust samples tested independently and stop wasting our time defending what looks to me like a shoddy experiment!

 

[Marokkaan]

As a former publisher and editor of a classical music magazine, maybe I can add a little to the vanity publisher discussion. Vanity presses have less of a reputation, of course, but they are also one place for an author to get a start. Many very popular novels started as vanity projects (or self-published) and were picked up by the majors when they were successful.

In the publish-or-perish environment of academia, these Bentham Journals may be a place for grad students and non-tenured professors to publish scientific works. I doubt they exist solely for pseudoscience, and the fact that the editor quit in disgust after discovering that the thermite paper was released without her knowledge tells us she had at least SOME concern for scientific integrity.

This is conjecture, but I wonder if Bentham serves entry-level researchers well by giving them an outlet for publication. No, it's not peer-reviewed (or the editor would have at least known the piece was being published). But I wouldn't write off a Bentham article solely on the fact that it appeared in that journal. I am much more impressed with Sunstealer's comparison of "thermitics" to paint chips and the poor job Harritt et al did with the spectographs.

Bottom line, get the dust samples tested independently and stop wasting our time defending what looks to me like a shoddy experiment!

Well help him to suport to write an article about it. The poor guy is just only posting on a forum.

 

[uke2se]

Well help him to suport to write an article about it. The poor guy is just only posting on a forum.

That isn't required to respond to a non peer-reviewed paper that nobody cares about.

 

[DGM]

No i only read it...

So, it really had no significant impact on the world? Why would someone pay to refute something no one noticed. Would you?

 

[Marokkaan]

So, it really had no significant impact on the world? Why would someone pay to refute something no one noticed. Would you?

It needs time. And the research is not complete.

But tell me. Does the whole world know about the research of nist?

No better, tell me. Does the scienceworld/architects/engineers of America all know about the NIST reports?

 

[uke2se]

It needs time. And the research is not complete.

You've had 10 years. What's taking you so long?

But tell me. Does the whole world know about the research of nist?

People professionally affected by it, yes. NIST's research changed the methods for building and fireproofing buildings all over the world.

No better, tell me. Does the scienceworld/architects/engineers of America all know about the NIST reports?

That's a fat yes.

 

[Marokkaan]

You've had 10 years. What's taking you so long?

10 years ago the paper was published????

People professionally affected by it, yes. NIST's research changed the methods for building and fireproofing buildings all over the world.



That's a fat yes

.
A fact you mean?

If its a fact, you can show the fact?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to officially convict the US and it's closest allies of complicity in or even creating 9/11 right now. The World is too unstable and who knows what other horrors they would unleash as a distraction if we pressed that issue too hard.
But we can certainly convict them in the court of people's minds. It's far better that people are finally awake and staring at the politicians. Now when an atrocity occurs the first place many people look is at government. This is as it should be for our own protection.
Just think how different this mind set is to the mind set of 10 short years ago at the end of the Clinton administration. Happy days. Even you debunkers should be dragging the politicians out of office and horsewhipping them.

But we could and should get on with the witch hunt necessary to purge the scum whose agendas were advanced by 9/11 and those who protected them.

Not doing anything, it's been ten years, allows the guilty and the money people behind the guilty to fade more deeply into the cracks.

 

[uke2se]

10 years ago the paper was published????

No, 10 years ago since the events. The fact that the paper was published much later using old samples with highly questionable chains of evidence is actually another detriment to it.

A fact you mean?

If its a fact, you can show the fact?

What are you talking about? Try typing in English.

Do you want me to prove to you that people know about the NIST report?

 

[DGM]

It needs time. And the research is not complete.

But tell me. Does the whole world know about the research of nist?

No better, tell me. Does the scienceworld/architects/engineers of America all know about the NIST reports?

Dr. Judy Wood:
Dr. Wood received her

B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),
M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

She is a "truther".

Impressive qualifications, right?

Every structural engineer and architect I knows about the NIST reports. Does this help? Why do you ask?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is peer reviewed

If you think the Journal of 9/11 Studies carries out a credible peer review process, then you have no idea what peer review is.

Just like the forumdebunkposters here

This is getting absurd. You're commenting that the Wikipedia page on criticisms of the 9/11 Commission agrees with the general tone of posts on this forum. Doesn't that tend to reinforce both?

Oh now you're saying it was stupid LOL.

Can u tell why it was stupid?

The Clinton investigations? Would I like to tell you why it was stupid to spend millions of dollars in repeated investigations into a case where there was very little suspicion of any significant wrongdoing having been done, and the ultimate result was that nothing of any serious importance was found? Only a truther would ask that.

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

Zacarias Moussaoui.

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

And yet, when NIST investigated the possibility of explosives in WTC7 and ruled it out completely, conspiracy theorists ignore them. That's the problem; you decide what you want to hear, then ignore anything else.

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

I have no doubt that one of the first responses by the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks was to consider how it could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. It's notable that they couldn't come up with anything, and had to use imaginary reports of weapons of mass destruction.

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

You're confusing history with criminal justice. We can be certain al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks without having to hold a criminal trial. Trials are to establish whether the guilt of a specific party for a specific action has been established beyond reasonable doubt, not to find out what happened.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

No better, tell me. Does the scienceworld/architects/engineers of America all know about the NIST reports?

They'd better. The regulations for high-rise buildings have been revised based on NIST's findings, and the architects and structural engineers all have to follow those regulations. Not to know about them would be professional negligence.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

No, 10 years ago since the events. The fact that the paper was published much later using old samples with highly questionable chains of evidence is actually another detriment to it.

so a research had to be done at 2001 you say? Its rubbish what you are typing so ignore that.

What are you talking about? Try typing in English.

Do you want me to prove to you that people know about the NIST report?

You say its a fact, that al those people know about the NIST report, so if its a fact, you can show the proof.

 

[uke2se]

so a research had to be done at 2001 you say? Its rubbish what you are typing so ignore that.

You are lying again Marokkaan. You should try to stay honest if you want to spread the twoof.

You say its a fact, that al those people know about the NIST report, so if its a fact, you can show the proof.

Look at the regulations for building and fireproofing high rise buildings anywhere in the world for proof. Also, see Dave's post above.

 

[bill smith]

As a former publisher and editor of a classical music magazine, maybe I can add a little to the vanity publisher discussion. Vanity presses have less of a reputation, of course, but they are also one place for an author to get a start. Many very popular novels started as vanity projects (or self-published) and were picked up by the majors when they were successful.

In the publish-or-perish environment of academia, these Bentham Journals may be a place for grad students and non-tenured professors to publish scientific works. I doubt they exist solely for pseudoscience, and the fact that the editor quit in disgust after discovering that the thermite paper was released without her knowledge tells us she had at least SOME concern for scientific integrity.

This is conjecture, but I wonder if Bentham serves entry-level researchers well by giving them an outlet for publication. No, it's not peer-reviewed (or the editor would have at least known the piece was being published). But I wouldn't write off a Bentham article solely on the fact that it appeared in that journal. I am much more impressed with Sunstealer's comparison of "thermitics" to paint chips and the poor job Harritt et al did with the spectographs.

Bottom line, get the dust samples tested independently and stop wasting our time defending what looks to me like a shoddy experiment!

Professor Neils Harrit:
'After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise'
.
' already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology'

She was evidently 'going along to get along'.

Professor Harrit:
' But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major
advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).'

 

[sylvan8798]

But we could and should get on with the witch hunt necessary to purge the scum whose agendas were advanced by 9/11 and those who protected them.

Not doing anything, it's been ten years, allows the guilty and the money people behind the guilty to fade more deeply into the cracks.

And what are YOU doing to make that happen?

 

[Marokkaan]

If you think the Journal of 9/11 Studies carries out a credible peer review process, then you have no idea what peer review is.

Thats your opinion i dont care. And i say u dont understand the meaning of peer review

You read the article?

This is getting absurd. You're commenting that the Wikipedia page on criticisms of the 9/11 Commission agrees with the general tone of posts on this forum. Doesn't that tend to reinforce both?

You have read it?

The Clinton investigations? Would I like to tell you why it was stupid to spend millions of dollars in repeated investigations into a case where there was very little suspicion of any significant wrongdoing having been done, and the ultimate result was that nothing of any serious importance was found? Only a truther would ask that.

You really think they throw 40 millions away??? You really think NIST or the government, was thinking about being careful with money because they spend to much at the case of bill clinton?

How naive you can be as a debunker....

Zacarias Moussaoui.

Not one of the 19 hijackers, osama bin laden even denies his involvement.

He claimed first not guilty, and than suddenly he claims he is quilty.

And he was sentenced without evidence.

So you say zacarias is the proof. osama bin laden en his organization did 9/11?

And yet, when NIST investigated the possibility of explosives in WTC7 and ruled it out completely, conspiracy theorists ignore them. That's the problem; you decide what you want to hear, then ignore anything else.

They didnt investigated. they say it also. Just an example:

Was the steel tested for explosives
or thermite residues? The combination of thermite
and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot
knife through butter." [Answer: ] NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel” [3].

I have no doubt that one of the first responses by the Bush administration to the 9/11 attacks was to consider how it could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. It's notable that they couldn't come up with anything, and had to use imaginary reports of weapons of mass destruction.

I agree, so thats suspicious

You're confusing history with criminal justice. We can be certain al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks without having to hold a criminal trial. Trials are to establish whether the guilt of a specific party for a specific action has been established beyond reasonable doubt, not to find out what happened

.

Now you cant be certain.
Only when you have the evidence,it can. So show me the evidence.

The reason why you need a trial. Because its dangerous to accuse somebody without evidence. The consequences are very big, as you see now in iraq and afghanistan and also in America and other countries in the world.

 

[Marokkaan]

You are lying again Marokkaan. You should try to stay honest if you want to spread the twoof.

Than why you say they had 10 years time?

Look at the regulations for building and fireproofing high rise buildings anywhere in the world for proof. Also, see Dave's post above

.

So the regulations for building etcetera, shows that al those engineers architects, chemist, physics etcetera have read the NIST reports?

Damnnn is this the level of a debunker....