Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Miragememories]

It is, isn't it. Why do you put up with their crap?

Because unlike the majority here, my mind isn't closed.

Don't get me wrong, I quite understand why people prefer to believe that all is well.

If I could close my mind to the truth, I would gladly embrace the world that keeps you feeling so warm and fuzzy.

MM

 

[DGM]

Don't get me wrong, I quite understand why people prefer to believe that all is well.

I can't speak for everyone but I feel fortunate. I have work and a good home life.

If I could close my mind to the truth, I would gladly embrace the world that keeps you feeling so warm and fuzzy.

MM

I think that soon after she kicks you're ass for the "embrace" I will have something to say about you touching her also.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No offense people, but wasn't our warm cozy life of ignorance supposed to end when Bush put the entire US under martial law and suspended the 2008 elections? Maybe it'll actually be Obama? Who knows?

 

[Miragememories]

I can't speak for everyone but I feel fortunate. I have work and a good home life.

You are living in a fool's paradise.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

"I know you are, but what am I?" Nice to see you can function at a five-year-old level.

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.

Then you're being idiotic too. Tillotson wasn't testing for the presence of nanothermite, he was testing the properties of something he already knew to be nanothermite. Harrit was testing an unknown substance to find out whether it contained thermite. The requirements are fundamentally different, as any competent scientist would know.

Let me try and give an example. If I have a substance that I know to be a cup of tea, and I drink it and don't die, then I know tea is not poisonous; I've tested one of the properties of a known substance. If I then take another unknown liquid, test it under the same conditions used for a known tea test, and find the same result - namely, I drink it and I don't die - have I proved it's tea? By your logic, I've used a set of test conditions that are more than reasonable to test for tea. As it turns out, the second substance is coffee. Have I just proved that coffee is tea?

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 don't seem to get it. There is no need for further tests; Harrit et al's own results are enough to disprove their conclusions. This, also, is obvious to any competent scientist. But what risk was involved to Harrit? He's a laughing stock among the small set of people who have bothered to read the paper and can understand it, but that's not who it's aimed at; it's aimed at the ignorant majority of truthers who will believe anything that supports their prejudices, and who will ignore any criticism of his work. True, faithful believers like you.

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

Harrit's academic credentials don't absolve him of the need to draw conclusions consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, something he has failed to do.

I'm assuming you have some comparable academic credentials?

A similar level of qualifications and experience, and a considerably better publication record. But it's irrelevant; however many papers anyone's published, thermite can't yield more than 4kJ/g, and a sample with less than 5% thermite can't yield more than 0.2kJ/g. Harrit gets 7.5kJ/g. It's not a thermite reaction. There's no possible room for doubt.

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

"And this demonstrates very clearly why Harrit is an idiot."

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

"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."

"Then you're being idiotic too. Tillotson wasn't testing for the presence of nanothermite, he was testing the properties of something he already knew to be nanothermite. Harrit was testing an unknown substance to find out whether it contained thermite. The requirements are fundamentally different, as any competent scientist would know.

Hmm

Dr. Harrit was testing to see if the observed characteristics were similar to nano-thermite as described by Tillotson.

Tillotson was doing a similar test to observe the properties (characteristics of something), of his nano-thermite.

Wow. Now that is a big distinction. Thank you for that enlightening clarification Dave.

"Let me try and give an example. If I have a substance that I know to be a cup of tea, and I drink it and don't die, then I know tea is not poisonous; I've tested one of the properties of a known substance. If I then take another unknown liquid, test it under the same conditions used for a known tea test, and find the same result - namely, I drink it and I don't die - have I proved it's tea? By your logic, I've used a set of test conditions that are more than reasonable to test for tea. As it turns out, the second substance is coffee. Have I just proved that coffee is tea?

I hate to burst your genius bubble Dave but they weren't drinking the red chips. They did a great deal of analysis of which the DSC testing was only part. But go ahead with your simplistic way of viewing things you find disagreeable. The rank and file will continue to lap it up.

Time to wake up and "smell the coffee" Dave.

"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."

"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 don't seem to get it. There is no need for further tests; Harrit et al's own results are enough to disprove their conclusions. This, also, is obvious to any competent scientist. But what risk was involved to Harrit? He's a laughing stock among the small set of people who have bothered to read the paper and can understand it, but that's not who it's aimed at; it's aimed at the ignorant majority of truthers who will believe anything that supports their prejudices, and who will ignore any criticism of his work. True, faithful believers like you.

The only people I've heard laughing are all the anonymous self-proclaimed experts here in JREF. Of course that is what they do.

If Dr. Harrit et al's paper was such a failure, I would have thought all your professionals would have torn it to shreds longs ago and made the 9/11 Truth Movement suffer a fatal blow.

Talking bs from the soapbox here is easy since you can claim any damn thing you want and the mob will cheer for more.

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

"Harrit's academic credentials don't absolve him of the need to draw conclusions consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, something he has failed to do."

Yet we have all these fellow physicists and over 1,600 professionals at AE911 who have read the paper and find no violation to the laws of science. It must be nice to be such a visionary Dave. Your a regular Nobel contender.

"I'm assuming you have some comparable academic credentials?"

"A similar level of qualifications and experience, and a considerably better publication record. But it's irrelevant; however many papers anyone's published, thermite can't yield more than 4kJ/g, and a sample with less than 5% thermite can't yield more than 0.2kJ/g. Harrit gets 7.5kJ/g. It's not a thermite reaction. There's no possible room for doubt."

Well the paper acknowledges the limits of ordinary thermite and does not shy away from that premise. I thought you read it?

"We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material."

I wonder if your thinking has been poisoned by drinking too much of the wrong tea Dave.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hmm

Dr. Harrit was testing to see if the observed characteristics were similar to nano-thermite as described by Tillotson.

Tillotson was doing a similar test to observe the properties (characteristics of something), of his nano-thermite.

Wow. Now that is a big distinction. Thank you for that enlightening clarification Dave.

That's OK. I didn't expect you to understand it. Let's pretend Harrit really was testing to see if the observed characteristics were similar to nanothermite, rather than testing to see if nanothermite was present, a distinction one needs some rudimentary level of intelligence to appreciate. He found that his samples gave off much more energy at a lower temperature than nanothermite, and that the observed characteristics were not similar. His response was not even to consider the possibility that his substance was not nanothermite; he simply tried to explain away the discrepancies. So he's not practicing science here.

I hate to burst your genius bubble Dave but they weren't drinking the red chips. They did a great deal of analysis of which the DSC testing was only part.

And none of the rest of it demonstrated that it was thermite either.

If Dr. Harrit et al's paper was such a failure, I would have thought all your professionals would have torn it to shreds longs ago

It has been torn to shreds on this forum. There's no real need to do the same anywhere else, because nobody is taking it seriously anywhere else.

and made the 9/11 Truth Movement suffer a fatal blow.

How would we tell the difference?

Well the paper acknowledges the limits of ordinary thermite and does not shy away from that premise. I thought you read it?

Yes, I read it.

However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]ingredients

of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic.

​

​

​

​

[/FONT]​

[/FONT]

So the DSC trace is crucial to the conclusions of the paper, and we know that at least part of the energy measured in the DSC trace does not come from thermite. So we know for certain that there is a reaction releasing energy that is not a thermite reaction, and therefore we don't know for certain that all the energy released isn't coming from this reaction. But the DSC trace shows only a single exotherm, strongly suggesting only a single reaction; and if there is only a single reaction, that reaction cannot be thermite.​

But none of this is news. It's been stated clearly many times over. You're not going to understand it this time, if you've been unable to understand it so far.​

Dave​

​

 

[000063]

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.

So because the government does not meet your arbitrary standard of evidence, it is affirmative evidence explosives were used.

That's a remarkably contorted Argument from Ignorance, even for you.

Those cartoonish animations?

The ones that NIST won't release for evaluation?

"Evaluation" by who? Why animations, specifically, when NIST has an entire whitepaper on the subject? Any animation they produce is going to be dismissed by truthers for the slightest diversion from how they think the collapses happened. I wouldn't be surprised if these hypothetical Truthers wouldn't demand that NIST do another simulation with explosives, despite the fact that the Truthers have no idea where explosives would be positioned, or how they would be smuggled into the building, or where the wiring went, or why the explosives and wiring weren't damaged by impact and/or fire.

 

[Miragememories]

"Hmm

Dr. Harrit was testing to see if the observed characteristics were similar to nano-thermite as described by Tillotson.

Tillotson was doing a similar test to observe the properties (characteristics of something), of his nano-thermite.

Wow. Now that is a big distinction. Thank you for that enlightening clarification Dave."

"That's OK. I didn't expect you to understand it. Let's pretend Harrit really was testing to see if the observed characteristics were similar to nanothermite, rather than testing to see if nanothermite was present, a distinction one needs some rudimentary level of intelligence to appreciate. He found that his samples gave off much more energy at a lower temperature than nanothermite, and that the observed characteristics were not similar. His response was not even to consider the possibility that his substance was not nanothermite; he simply tried to explain away the discrepancies. So he's not practicing science here."

I guess my lacking your rudimentary level of intelligence accounts for my inability to appreciate the significance between testing for the characteristics of nanothermite, and testing for the presence of nanothermite.

Referring to the Dr. Harrit et al report, in the introduction they do shed some light on your apparent confused understanding of their intentions. And you'll be relieved to know that it is not necessary to do any pretending Dave.

"In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction, a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings."

As you already know, the paper acknowledged the high energy/low ignition temperature finding and specifically addressed this in their conclusions.

"Let me try and give an example. If I have a substance that I know to be a cup of tea, and I drink it and don't die, then I know tea is not poisonous; I've tested one of the properties of a known substance. If I then take another unknown liquid, test it under the same conditions used for a known tea test, and find the same result - namely, I drink it and I don't die - have I proved it's tea? By your logic, I've used a set of test conditions that are more than reasonable to test for tea. As it turns out, the second substance is coffee. Have I just proved that coffee is tea?

"I hate to burst your genius bubble Dave but they weren't drinking the red chips. They did a great deal of analysis of which the DSC testing was only part."

"And none of the rest of it demonstrated that it was thermite either."

Well you are entitled to your rudimentary opinion Dave.

"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 don't seem to get it. There is no need for further tests; Harrit et al's own results are enough to disprove their conclusions. This, also, is obvious to any competent scientist. But what risk was involved to Harrit? He's a laughing stock among the small set of people who have bothered to read the paper and can understand it, but that's not who it's aimed at; it's aimed at the ignorant majority of truthers who will believe anything that supports their prejudices, and who will ignore any criticism of his work. True, faithful believers like you.

"The only people I've heard laughing are all the anonymous self-proclaimed experts here in JREF. Of course that is what they do.

If Dr. Harrit et al's paper was such a failure, I would have thought all your professionals would have torn it to shreds longs ago and made the 9/11 Truth Movement suffer a fatal blow.

Talking bs from the soapbox here is easy since you can claim any damn thing you want and the mob will cheer for more."

"It has been torn to shreds on this forum. There's no real need to do the same anywhere else, because nobody is taking it seriously anywhere else. "

But that appears to be the sole function of this forum Dave.

Like rabid dogs, the rank 'n file here attack anything and anybody who disagrees with the Official Story.

Years ago, after I complained, one of the moderators here kindly pointed out to me that lying was permitted. Since then, I have observed Official Story supporters lying and misinforming on a grand scale.

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

"Harrit's academic credentials don't absolve him of the need to draw conclusions consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, something he has failed to do."

"Yet we have all these fellow physicists and over 1,600 professionals at AE911 who have read the paper and find no violation to the laws of science. It must be nice to be such a visionary Dave. You're a regular Nobel contender."

No comment

"I'm assuming you have some comparable academic credentials?"

"A similar level of qualifications and experience, and a considerably better publication record. But it's irrelevant; however many papers anyone's published, thermite can't yield more than 4kJ/g, and a sample with less than 5% thermite can't yield more than 0.2kJ/g. Harrit gets 7.5kJ/g. It's not a thermite reaction. There's no possible room for doubt."

"Well the paper acknowledges the limits of ordinary thermite and does not shy away from that premise. I thought you read it?"

"We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material."

"Yes, I read it."

"However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic."

Of course you knowingly took that quote out of its full context. You've implied that they neglected to proceed further in their investigation which is untrue.

They listed their step-by-step Results in numerical order. Your extract above came from Step #2 and was followed up by Step#3 - Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry, Step#4 - Observation of Iron-Rich Sphere Formation Upon Ignition of Chips in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, and Step#5 - Flame/Ignition Tests

"So the DSC trace is crucial to the conclusions of the paper, and we know that at least part of the energy measured in the DSC trace does not come from thermite. So we know for certain that there is a reaction releasing energy that is not a thermite reaction, and therefore we don't know for certain that all the energy released isn't coming from this reaction. But the DSC trace shows only a single exotherm, strongly suggesting only a single reaction; and if there is only a single reaction, that reaction cannot be thermite.

But none of this is news. It's been stated clearly many times over. You're not going to understand it this time, if you've been unable to understand it so far."

Well your response above might explain why you bypassed responding to my quote from the paper that addresses your point. I'll repeat it for those people, unlike yourself, who are truly interested in honest representation.

"We observe that the total energy released from some of the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone (3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red material would promote understanding. Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material."

MM

 

[DGM]

I guess my lacking your rudimentary level of intelligence accounts for my inability to appreciate the significance between testing for the characteristics of nanothermite, and testing for the presence of nanothermite.........................................



MM

So, why all the talk about "thermite"? Shouldn't their paper be called "We found stuff that burned like hell and contained material we would expect to find in nature but, we were not interested in identifying"?

I bet they would have got the same response (except from the target audience).

 

[Xero]

"Official story supporters"? Really, this is the quality of weak ass arguments you have?

Never mind that the facts and evidence actually support a narrative more in line with what is accepted, it must be wrong because it's "the official story".

The stupid, it burns.!

 

[leftysergeant]

You know, a side-by-side presentation of video of the Harrit and Tillitson chips igniting might be useful.

I think that the only video I have seen so far is of one of Harrit's chips, and it in no way resembled burning thermite.

 

[Xero]

Because unlike the majority here, my mind isn't closed.

Don't get me wrong, I quite understand why people prefer to believe that all is well.

If I could close my mind to the truth, I would gladly embrace the world that keeps you feeling so warm and fuzzy.

MM

Your opinion of yourself and your own abilities does not seem to match up to the reality. Funny that.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So because the government does not meet your arbitrary standard of evidence, it is affirmative evidence explosives were used.

That's a remarkably contorted Argument from Ignorance, even for you.

"Evaluation" by who? Why animations, specifically, when NIST has an entire whitepaper on the subject? Any animation they produce is going to be dismissed by truthers for the slightest diversion from how they think the collapses happened. I wouldn't be surprised if these hypothetical Truthers wouldn't demand that NIST do another simulation with explosives, despite the fact that the Truthers have no idea where explosives would be positioned, or how they would be smuggled into the building, or where the wiring went, or why the explosives and wiring weren't damaged by impact and/or fire.

Like I've said the how it was done with explosives is meaningless and a fools errand.

How it did happen without explosives must be re-creatable with a computer model. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 should each have model that recreates its destruction and is open to public review.

 

[Xero]

Like I've said the how it was done with explosives is meaningless and a fools errand.

How it did happen without explosives must be re-creatable with a computer model. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 should each have model that recreates its destruction and is open to public review.

Really? Wow. The hypocrisy in this post alone would full a fraking stadium.

 

[leftysergeant]

Like I've said the how it was done with explosives is meaningless and a fools errand.

Of course it is, because there is not the first piece of evidence that it was done with explosives other than a fuel/air mixture inserted at the time of the impact of the aircraftinto the buildings.

Don't cite fire fighters or passers-by or TV news casters or that idiot MacQueen. None of them mention explosions consistant with demolition charges.

Don't bring in Barry Jennings. He statede flat-out that the explosion he heard did not sound like a boiler explosion.

Having been present at both the explosion of a boiler and rounds of 155mm arillery rounds and the demolition of several structures, including the Kingdome, Jennings disrves bombs in the building. Boilers and 155 rounds sound a hell of a lot alike.

How it did happen without explosives must be re-creatable with a computer model. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 should each have model that recreates its destruction and is open to public review.

That would be stupid, since it has already been explined that the falling floor trusses set of the cascading failures in the towers.

There are no signitures of explosives in any of the videos.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I guess my lacking your rudimentary level of intelligence accounts for my inability to appreciate the significance between testing for the characteristics of nanothermite, and testing for the presence of nanothermite.

Congratulations: You have conjectured a scientific hypothesis.

Without disputing your conjecture, I suggest three more contributing factors: unfamiliarity with (1) Bayesian probabilities, (2) experimental design, (3) science in general.

How would you demonstrate that a sample consists of acetone? Testing for the characteristics of acetone, you'd proceed as follows:

Liquid? Check.

Colorless? Check.

Miscible with water? Check.

Dissolves sugar? Check.

Strong odor? No odor at all. Must be contaminated.

Density below 0.8 g/ml? No, so it must be double top secret nano-acetone.

Boils at 330 K? No, confirming your identification of double top secret nano-acetone.
​

When scientists point out that your results are more consistent with water than with acetone, would you (like Harrit) become indignant and stick to your story?

 

[Miragememories]

"You know, a side-by-side presentation of video of the Harrit and Tillitson chips igniting might be useful.

I think that the only video I have seen so far is of one of Harrit's chips, and it in no way resembled burning thermite."

And you have observed a thermite chip that small when it was ignited?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"I guess my lacking your rudimentary level of intelligence accounts for my inability to appreciate the significance between testing for the characteristics of nanothermite, and testing for the presence of nanothermite.

Referring to the Dr. Harrit et al report, in the introduction they do shed some light on your apparent confused understanding of their intentions. And you'll be relieved to know that it is not necessary to do any pretending Dave."

"In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction, a general request was issued for samples of the WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings."

Congratulations: You have conjectured a scientific hypothesis.

Without disputing your conjecture, . . .

I suggest you stick to the context of my argument next time and avoid the self indulgence.

MM

 

[DGM]

I suggest you stick to the context of my argument next time and avoid the self indulgence.

MM

How does that quote from the paper help your case? It certainly doesn't address anything Dave said.