Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.


They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'.Surely at that tpoint they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession. It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement . Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so ?
Click to expand...
So maybe I'm now disagreeing with everyone! Bill, NIST didn't know everything in the mid 2000s but worked on it a couple more years and put out their report. By then they had a very good explanation... not perfect, as that darned perimeter wall obscured the view of a lot of what actually happened.

Ozeco, I would not throw in the towel, and I realize that that one thermite test turning out positive would be only one step. But it would be such a major step that I would change my mind about supporting either new investigation or at least getting a dust sample with an unimpeachable chain of custody from another source.

No response still from the two dust labs I contacted (the third isn't able to help cuz they don't have the right equipment). Kevin Ryan has not said yes (but he hasn't said no either). So as much as I'd love to see this test happen, we are not about to move forward just yet. Save your $20 each for now guys!
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
And what's to prevent Gage from salting the sample with just a teensy bit of the Right Stuff® to ensure the answers are what he wants?

The chain of evidence has been FUBARed.
Click to expand...


Absolutely....Jones fubar'd it right from the start when all sample went through his custody before even the first test. Now having hung his career on this nonsense he simply has too much to lose by letting there be a negative test result.
 
chrismohr said:
So maybe I'm now disagreeing with everyone! Bill, NIST didn't know everything in the mid 2000s but worked on it a couple more years and put out their report. By then they had a very good explanation... not perfect, as that darned perimeter wall obscured the view of a lot of what actually happened.

Ozeco, I would not throw in the towel, and I realize that that one thermite test turning out positive would be only one step. But it would be such a major step that I would change my mind about supporting either new investigation or at least getting a dust sample with an unimpeachable chain of custody from another source.

No response still from the two dust labs I contacted (the third isn't able to help cuz they don't have the right equipment). Kevin Ryan has not said yes (but he hasn't said no either). So as much as I'd love to see this test happen, we are not about to move forward just yet. Save your $20 each for now guys!
Click to expand...

Just to belabour this point a little Chris. When NIST realised that they could only report that ' we cannot fully explain the total collapse of WTC7' it seems glaringly obvious that they were knowingly omitting the test for explosive residues in the dust. They didn't 'forget' ór anything like that. As I understand it the test is a fairly normal part of the procedure, especially when there is a mysterious collapse and a lack of certainty about it's causes. This was taxpayer money being spent and the taxpayer had a right to expect the most complete test possible with no omissions.

Kevin Ryan will probably not react until a clearer picture of progress starts to emerge. I'm sure he would like to know ehich labs you are approaching with the test request. Do you feel that you can give their names ?
 
I know it's not evidence against what you're saying, but why would they place explosives in a building not touched by a plane? Why didn't they crash a plane into WTC7 to make it not look suspicious?
 
bill smith said:
It's a pity that NIST don't want to be involved.

They said 'We follow the evidence' But after a few years of study they produced a draft report that contained the statement 'We cannot fully explain the total collapse of building 7'. Surely at that point they should have tested for explosive residues in the dust that they undoubtedly had in their possession. It's plain that they were saying that there was an unknown factor at play which is very well reflected in the statement . Do you think that it could be considered negligence that they didn't do so ?
Click to expand...

You appear to be fixated on a single phrase in a draft report from which you have constructed an entire fantasy about explosives.

Have you read the final report and the two reports with supplemental material? Their goal was to analyze the "most probable factors", not chase unicorns. What makes explosives "probable". Were there loud booms, flashes, and shock waves observed?

The reports explicitly explain how they arrived at their conclusions. What part of the conclusions (the physics, the math, or the modeling) do you think is flawed and what are the flaws?
 
it seems glaringly obvious that they were knowingly omitting the test for explosive residues in the dust. They didn't 'forget' ór anything like that.
Click to expand...
The report, which you do not appear to have read, does not mention testing anything for explosives. It also does not mention testing for meteorite strikes, space ray melting, steel-eating termites, or any of a myriad of far-fetched things which in someone's fevered imagination in an alternate universe might have been the cause.

As I understand it the test is a fairly normal part of the procedure, especially when there is a mysterious collapse and a lack of certainty about it's causes.
Click to expand...
Why is the collapse of a building that has been on fire for hours mysterious?
Was there a lack of certainty that it had been on fire for hours?

Please read the entire report, and the two supporting documents and specify which part of the analysis of the collapse is incorrect, with modeling and analysis of your own. "I don't think it happened that way" is not sufficient.
 
wollclark said:
I know it's not evidence against what you're saying, but why would they place explosives in a building not touched by a plane? Why didn't they crash a plane into WTC7 to make it not look suspicious?
Click to expand...
Don't get Bill started. That's where he says United 93 was supposed to have crashed.

:eek:
 
bill smith said:
Just to belabour this point a little Chris. When NIST realised that they could only report that ' we cannot fully explain the total collapse of WTC7' it seems glaringly obvious that they were knowingly omitting the test for explosive residues in the dust. They didn't 'forget' ór anything like that. As I understand it the test is a fairly normal part of the procedure, especially when there is a mysterious collapse and a lack of certainty about it's causes. This was taxpayer money being spent and the taxpayer had a right to expect the most complete test possible with no omissions.

Kevin Ryan will probably not react until a clearer picture of progress starts to emerge. I'm sure he would like to know ehich labs you are approaching with the test request. Do you feel that you can give their names ?
Click to expand...
NIST didn't forget to test for explosives, they followed the evidence and there was no evidence for explosives bringing down an unfought fire after almost seven hours of burning.

Once I get a suggested lab or two to test the dust I will tell Kevin Ryan all about it. Since I'm researching this from the ground up, I don't yet even have proof that there IS an easy test for thermites. Once the labs respond I'll know more.
 
chrismohr said:
NIST didn't forget to test for explosives, they followed the evidence and there was no evidence for explosives bringing down an unfought fire after almost seven hours of burning.

Once I get a suggested lab or two to test the dust I will tell Kevin Ryan all about it. Since I'm researching this from the ground up, I don't yet even have proof that there IS an easy test for thermites. Once the labs respond I'll know more.
Click to expand...

If these current labs refuse or cannot do the tests will you keep trying new ones until some accept ?
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to find out the age of the samples in a lab? Would be interesting if the samples were from the 1970's, or if they turned out to be thermite, yet were made around 2005.
 
Fly Poster said:
Is it possible to find out the age of the samples in a lab? Would be interesting if the samples were from the 1970's, or if they turned out to be thermite, yet were made around 2005.
Click to expand...

Aging of substances depends on the type of substance. So before you can figure out how old a sample is, you to establish what it is.

Yep, epoxy paint (which is what the red layer stuff) will undergo some aging, dependend on ambient temperatures, humidity, atmosphere, exposure to daylight, ...
Any estimate of the sample's age would then depend on the conclusions and assumptions you already made about its origin: Not only the exact or approximate material composition of the paint, but also what it was painted on and where. We think that these chips are LaClede Steel Company's standard primer and originated from the floor joists of the twin towers. This would mean they were mostly exposed to darkness, near room temperature for most of their life and possibly a little more humidity than typical office environment. Of course, you have to account for 10 years of storage in partly unknown conditions between 9/11 and today.

ETA: Then again, if you doubt the assumptions (LaClede paint from floor joists), then any results concerning age are moot. You might instead suppose we are in fact looking at some preparation of nanothermite. In this case, you need to make some other asumptions, and there's a big problems: Truthers like Harrit and friends haven't told us the material composition of the entire sample. In particular, they don't know what kind of organic matrix the minerals are embedded in, and they have no theory about where, and for how long, that material was applied at the WTC until collapse. Absent any plausible assumptions about these things, no estimate of the age can be made. And again, the 10 years since have to be factored in somehow.

In short: Methods for estimating age of materials won't help us resolve the issue of paint vs. "active thermitic material".
 
Last edited:
And the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar.

Sorry, off topic I know....
 
Update: I'm having trouble zooming in on how to get a thermite/thermate test done. Still working though, this time on a new round of companies that the first round of companies recommended to me. Will keep you all posted. Chris
 
chrismohr said:
And the bartender says, "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos in here."
A neutrino walks into a bar.
Click to expand...
user12386_pic821_1238626757.gif
37.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom