Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Miragememories said:
I suggest you stick to the context of my argument next time and avoid the self indulgence.
Click to expand...


Here's the context of your argument:

Dave Rogers said:
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.

...snip...

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.
Click to expand...


That was the context of your post to which I was responding. Your response to my post (quoted above) confirmed (once again) Dave Rogers's final sentence.
 
Miragememories said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, you said it, not me. Yes, there is a difference, yes, that difference should be obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain, and no, that difference does not seem to be apparent to you; if your explanation is that you lack a rudimentary level of intelligence, then I have no quarrel with that.

Dave
 
=Miragememories;7674291]
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.
Click to expand...


Its a skeptics forum. You post utter nonsense what else do you expect?
You are just flat wrong and cannot or will not accept that.

You are no different than the fools that think the world is 7000 years old or indeed the fools that flew the airliners into the WTC towers expecting to get their 70 virgins. 911 twoof is just another religious cult.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
"...the DSC trace shows only a single exotherm, strongly suggesting only a single reaction..."
Click to expand...
W.D.Clinger said:
Here's the context of your argument:
That was the context of your post to which I was responding. Your response to my post (quoted above) confirmed (once again) Dave Rogers's final sentence.
Click to expand...

In the interest of brevity, let me point out that a suggestion of something is not the same as proof of something.

Though for the prejudiced, any amount of suggestion will no doubt suffice as long as it can be construed to support their chosen belief.

from the Dr. Harrit et al Bentham paper said:
"As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately
430 ˚C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample."
Click to expand...

MM
 
Miragememories said:
In the interest of brevity, let me point out that a suggestion of something is not the same as proof of something.

Though for the prejudiced, any amount of suggestion will no doubt suffice as long as it can be construed to support their chosen belief.



MM
Click to expand...

What is the essential difference betwren "strongly suggesting" and "closely matching"? Could other things also be termed "closely matching" in this case? What is the difference between "closely matching" "and "exactly matching"?
 
911 troll caught equivocating "closely matching"

Miragememories said:
In the interest of brevity, let me point out that a suggestion of something is not the same as proof of something.

Though for the prejudiced, any amount of suggestion will no doubt suffice as long as it can be construed to support their chosen belief.
Click to expand...

LSSBB said:
What is the essential difference betwren "strongly suggesting" and "closely matching"? Could other things also be termed "closely matching" in this case? What is the difference between "closely matching" "and "exactly matching"?
Click to expand...

MM unwittingly fell into the equivocation logical fallacy.
 
LSSBB said:
What is the essential difference betwren "strongly suggesting" and "closely matching"? Could other things also be termed "closely matching" in this case? What is the difference between "closely matching" "and "exactly matching"?
Click to expand...

Context.

MM
 
LSSBB said:
More explicitly: your quote from the Dr. Harrit paper says the sample "matches fairly closely". How does that differ from Dave Rogers "strongly suggesting?
Click to expand...
I predict MM will chose to argue this point rather than conceding that the two statements are not different.

What we will end up with at best is an argument pointing out a distinction without a difference.
 
Miragememories said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree fully, MM. Clearly, you are not as smart as Rogers.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Like I've said the how it was done with explosives is meaningless and a fools errand.
Click to expand...
It concerns Means and Opportunity, vital to a theory of the crime. If the proposed Means are physically impossible, then the theory is invalid and needs to be adjusted.

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.
Click to expand...
Why a computer model? You are asserting that it should be a model, without saying why.

Incidentally, there was a computer model, at least one, and you already dismissed it as a cartoon. You have no idea what the proposed animation should be like, but you are willing to say that the one(s) produced aren't it. I find that suspect.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I predict MM will chose to argue this point rather than conceding that the two statements are not different.

What we will end up with at best is an argument pointing out a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
Gosh, I miss Femr.
 
000063 said:
It concerns Means and Opportunity, vital to a theory of the crime. If the proposed Means are physically impossible, then the theory is invalid and needs to be adjusted.

Why a computer model? You are asserting that it should be a model, without saying why.
Click to expand...

A computer model would, using the known building specifications and applying "damage", allow simulations to be made of how the buildings could have failed so drastically.

If a model couldn't be made to simulate/recreate the destruction caused by the known damage then explosives had to be used.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I predict MM will chose to argue this point rather than conceding that the two statements are not different.

What we will end up with at best is an argument pointing out a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

Yep, the old Semantic Shuffle.


You put one word in

You take two words out

You put both words in

And you whirl them all about

That's how you stir the doubt.
 
Clayton Moore said:
A computer model would, using the known building specifications and applying "damage", allow simulations to be made of how the buildings could have failed so drastically.

If a model couldn't be made to simulate/recreate the destruction caused by the known damage then explosives had to be used.
Click to expand...

Not to say the simulations didn't demonstrate how a collapse could happen, how does the failure of a simulation mean that demoltion HAD to be the reason???
 
Miragememories said:
In the interest of brevity, let me point out that a suggestion of something is not the same as proof of something.

Though for the prejudiced, any amount of suggestion will no doubt suffice as long as it can be construed to support their chosen belief.



MM
Click to expand...

Really MM, your lack of self awareness is stunning.............

Irony-796569.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom