Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismohr said:
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
Click to expand...
Maybe you should just ask a lab to review the Jones/ Harret work. All the data is there. Their own work proves that they're wrong.

To be more clear. Submit their work for peer-review.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Maybe you should just ask a lab to review the Jones/ Harret work. All the data is there. Their own work proves that they're wrong.

To be more clear. Submit their work for peer-review.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, but an actual dust analysis would be better. Do you think Harrit et al would accept mere criticism of their work? Of course, I believe they would reject an independent dust analysis too, but others would be more impressed if we got the dust and did an independent test. It ain't over, the fat lady still hasn't sung!
 
DGM said:
Maybe you should just ask a lab to review the Jones/ Harret work. All the data is there. Their own work proves that they're wrong.

To be more clear. Submit their work for peer-review.
Click to expand...
I agree it's an interesting idea, but it's likely a waste of time. One needs to compare independent methods/results. The Jones/Harrit paper went looking for thermite and -suprise- found it.

I'd prefer it if independent analytical chemists are just handed a sample of the dust and asked to answer the question "what is this ******" This would be considerably more expensive, and the analytical chemists would likely hate you for posing such a broad question, but that's the only way I can see getting a result that's acceptable to both sides of the debate.
 
chrismohr said:
Do you think Harrit et al would accept mere criticism of their work?
Click to expand...

As I recall, the very reasonable suggestion was made to Harrit that the DSC traces would have needed to be carried out under an inert atmosphere to show that the reaction they observed wasn't simply organics burning in air. His response was to say that the WTC demolitions weren't carried out under argon. This suggests to me that not only would Harrit et al not accept criticism of their work, they probably wouldn't even understand it.

Mr. Skinny said:
I agree it's an interesting idea, but it's likely a waste of time. One needs to compare independent methods/results. The Jones/Harrit paper went looking for thermite and -suprise- found it.
Click to expand...

The sad truth is that they didn't even do that. They found something that obviously wasn't thermite, then said they'd found it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
"Do you think Harrit et al would accept mere criticism of their work?"
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
"As I recall, the very reasonable suggestion was made to Harrit that the DSC traces would have needed to be carried out under an inert atmosphere to show that the reaction they observed wasn't simply organics burning in air. His response was to say that the WTC demolitions weren't carried out under argon. This suggests to me that not only would Harrit et al not accept criticism of their work, they probably wouldn't even understand it."
Click to expand...
Mr. Skinny said:
"I agree it's an interesting idea, but it's likely a waste of time. One needs to compare independent methods/results. The Jones/Harrit paper went looking for thermite and -suprise- found it."
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
"The sad truth is that they didn't even do that. They found something that obviously wasn't thermite, then said they'd found it."
Click to expand...


I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Harrit about this at the recent 9/11 Hearings at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Miragememories: "Why didn't you test the thermitic activity of the chips in a vacuum or inert gas?"

Dr Niels Harrit: "Because the only known DSC scanning done, on nano-thermite was done in air. We actually called Tillotson who was the author of this measurement and we asked him specifically did you run it in air or did you-- and he said it was run in air. So for comparison we did the same thing. Another thing is that the WTC was not demolished under argon"

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Another thing is that the WTC was not demolished under argon"[/i]

MM
Click to expand...


MM why do you post quotes that make Harrit look like a moron or does Harrit think (know?) that twoofers are fools and will swallow any twaddle??
Would the fact that a piece of steel had been used on a railroad rail mean that one would test for steel by running a train over it?
Would one test for high explosives by firing the sample from a tank gun?
Would you test the quality of milk by asking a cow to drink it?

One of the most obvious qualities of thermite is that it burns without the presence of free oxygen. This is pretty uncommon and testing in an inert gas allows one to firstly show that yes it will burn without oxygen and secondly since paint or other possibilities will not, the test would also rule out those.........
Its not as if argon is tough or expensive to get or hazardous to use.........:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny said:
I agree it's an interesting idea, but it's likely a waste of time. One needs to compare independent methods/results. The Jones/Harrit paper went looking for thermite and -suprise- found it.
Click to expand...

This whole "therm*te debate" is a waste of time. They have not shown how a demolition using this method could be carried out and not be painfully obvious to the whole world.

Mr. Skinny said:
I'd prefer it if independent analytical chemists are just handed a sample of the dust and asked to answer the question "what is this ******" This would be considerably more expensive, and the analytical chemists would likely hate you for posing such a broad question, but that's the only way I can see getting a result that's acceptable to both sides of the debate.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but, you don't really believe they would drop it at this? I know you've been around long enough to know, these guys can deny anything, the sad part is the followers will swallow whatever they spit up.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
This whole "therm*te debate" is a waste of time. They have not shown how a demolition using this method could be carried out and not be painfully obvious to the whole world...
Click to expand...
:clap: :clap: :clap:

My usual way of saying this is "It wouldn't matter if there was a 100 tonne stockpile of thernXte at ground zero. It wasn't used." AND "The whole thermXte debate is a red herring."
 
Last edited:
Seeing the results, trying to figure out the how of 9/11 Truth is truly just stupid. The results being that the three WTC buildings were completely destroyed.

The government owes its citizens computer models of how each building destroyed itself. Since that has not happened it's obvious that the three buildings were NOT destroyed without the use of explosives.
 
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...

Good point. Let me consider here only differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) as an analytical method and epoxy resins as "rivals" to thermites since epoxy resin was provingly used as a binder in red primer paint used for WTC floor trusses.

As I have found in the literature and have discussed in Oystein′s "paint thread" (e.g. see here , p 209-231), common polymers including epoxy resins (e.g. binders in paints) are usually rapidly degraded in the range ca 360-430 degrees C not only under air, but also under nitrogen. So, even DSC measurements under inert atmosphere cannot (in principle) distinguish thermitic reaction from other exothermic processes connected with the degradation of the epoxy binder. This must be taken into account.

On the other hand: Common polymers (including epoxies) rapidly degrade mostly in the region fairly below 500 degrees, where thermitic reaction is not observed even for "nanosized thermites". It is shown here
Fig 7.1, that "onset temperature" of thermitic reaction could be even below 500 degrees C, but this may be valid only for extremely fine aluminum particles of the sizes below ca 10 nm.

As regards "shapes" of DSC curves, it must be noted that polymer degradation is seldom investigated by DSC, since this method is not suitable for processes accompanied with the great loss of mass. Anyway, you can find some DSC curves for epoxies in the linked article from books.google (e.g. Fig. 8).
As you can see, for epoxies, almost complete loss of mass (overall exothermic process) occurs in the range ca 100 degrees (heating rate 10 K/min), even under nitrogen. Degradation under air (thermal-oxidative degradation) has the similar rate. This rate is comparable with the rate of burning of real nanothermite in Bentham paper. So no big difference between thermal degradation of epoxy and burning of nanothermite can be expected here... (Basically, DSC measurements should be done in isothermal mode and even real thermites can "burn" quite slowly at these conditions).

In conclusion: I think that only the positions of observed DSC exotherms can be taken as some proof that we are dealing with epoxy binder/thermite. For thermites, exotherms should lay above 500 oC, for epoxy binder, those should lay slightly below 400 oC.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Harrit about this at the recent 9/11 Hearings at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Miragememories: "Why didn't you test the thermitic activity of the chips in a vacuum or inert gas?"

Dr Niels Harrit: "Because the only known DSC scanning done, on nano-thermite was done in air. We actually called Tillotson who was the author of this measurement and we asked him specifically did you run it in air or did you-- and he said it was run in air. So for comparison we did the same thing. Another thing is that the WTC was not demolished under argon"
Click to expand...

And this demonstrates very clearly why Harrit is an idiot. Tillotson took a sample known to be nanothermite, and measured its reaction energy in air because, since he knew his sample to be nanothermite, he also knew that the presence of oxygen would not affect the reaction. Harrit took a sample not known to be nanothermite, and analysed it in conditions which would allow other reactions to occur. Therefore, Harrit's results do not allow him to determine whether the reaction a thermite reaction or some other reaction involving atmospheric oxygen; Tillotson, knowing that his sample was thermite, had no such concerns. And, indeed, from Harrit's results, we know that he did observe some other reaction, giving a signal some two orders of magnitude greater than the maximum possible signal he could have seen from nanothermite. Although, from Ivan Kminek's comments above, it seems that he would have observed the same reaction even in an inert atmosphere, indicating that Harrit's entire endeavour was futile right from the start.

As for Miragememories, who posted that response because he thought it made the idiot Harrit look like he knew what he was doing, I think the MA forbids me to comment.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The government owes its citizens computer models of how each building destroyed itself.
Click to expand...
You mean the computer models used by NIST? And the additional one created by Purdue for the Pentagon?

Since that has not happened it's obvious that the three buildings were NOT destroyed without the use of explosives.
Click to expand...
But it has happened.
 
It looks like I may get the info I need sometime next week. I'm taking this thermite/dust thing slow and easy but steady, I want to do it right the first time. Once I put together the specific information about what kinds of tests are available, we'll figure out how to actually do it next. I'm surprised the information-gathering step has been so difficult, but it IS coming along. The momentum is still there for this.
 
chrismohr said:
It looks like I may get the info I need sometime next week. I'm taking this thermite/dust thing slow and easy but steady, I want to do it right the first time. Once I put together the specific information about what kinds of tests are available, we'll figure out how to actually do it next. I'm surprised the information-gathering step has been so difficult, but it IS coming along. The momentum is still there for this.
Click to expand...
Take your time. My offer still stands, I'll kick in a few bucks.

;)
 
Miragememories said:
"I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Harrit about this at the recent 9/11 Hearings at Ryerson University in Toronto.

Miragememories: "Why didn't you test the thermitic activity of the chips in a vacuum or inert gas?"

Dr Niels Harrit: "Because the only known DSC scanning done, on nano-thermite was done in air. We actually called Tillotson who was the author of this measurement and we asked him specifically did you run it in air or did you-- and he said it was run in air. So for comparison we did the same thing. Another thing is that the WTC was not demolished under argon"
Click to expand...
Dave Rogers said:
"And this demonstrates very clearly why Harrit is an idiot."
Click to expand...

It is undisciplined statements like that, that reveal stepping in front of a mirror will show you who the true idiot is Dave.

Dave Rogers said:
"Tillotson took a sample known to be nanothermite, and measured its reaction energy in air because, since he knew his sample to be nanothermite, he also knew that the presence of oxygen would not affect the reaction. Harrit took a sample not known to be nanothermite, and analysed it in conditions which would allow other reactions to occur. Therefore, Harrit's results do not allow him to determine whether the reaction a thermite reaction or some other reaction involving atmospheric oxygen; Tillotson, knowing that his sample was thermite, had no such concerns. And, indeed, from Harrit's results, we know that he did observe some other reaction, giving a signal some two orders of magnitude greater than the maximum possible signal he could have seen from nanothermite. Although, from Ivan Kminek's comments above, it seems that he would have observed the same reaction even in an inert atmosphere, indicating that Harrit's entire endeavour was futile right from the start.

As for Miragememories, who posted that response because he thought it made the idiot Harrit look like he knew what he was doing, I think the MA forbids me to comment."
Click to expand...

I dunno Dave, if I wanted to see if a material was characteristic of nano-thermite, I think testing it under the same conditions used for a known nano-thermite test would be more than reasonable.

If you are correct that it is not thermite, then Harrit et al took a helluva risk, given a debunking test of non-thermitic material in inert gas or vacuum would have scuttled their published conclusions.

You appear to hold little regard for the academic credentials of those other than yourself.

I'm assuming you have some comparable academic credentials?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
If you are correct that it is not thermite, then Harrit et al took a helluva risk, given a debunking test of non-thermitic material in inert gas or vacuum would have scuttled their published conclusions.
Click to expand...

Why would they care? They could have tested Playdough, "truthers" never question results that go against the belief. You believe Gage has a petition that he's going to submit to congress.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom