Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wish I had more to report, but the dust test is moving forward. Several people are on it now. I'll let you all know, I promise.
 
chrismohr said:
Wish I had more to report, but the dust test is moving forward. Several people are on it now. I'll let you all know, I promise.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your announcement:cool:

If I were chemist who possesses authentic and well-stored WTC dust, and if I could freely employ usual analytical instruments and laboratory equipment, I would follow this way of thinking and experimenting (based on our hypotheses in "paint thread"):

1) Red chips of "Laclede primer paint" used for corrosion protection WTC floor trusses should significantly prevail in the dust, since this paint was probably almost completely stripped off the steel during collapses. On the other hand, Tnemec primer used for perimeter steel columns mostly remained attached to the steel and the same is probably valid also for primers used for core steel elements. (Even so, however, some red chips of these primers have to be present in the dust). There should be very roughly some 10-40 tons of Laclede red chips in the dust, according to calculations made by Oystein. These chips could be isolated from the dust e.g. using some magnet, similarly as in Bentham paper.

2) (Probable) Laclede paint red chips could be discerned from Tnemec (or other red primer paint) chips using their expected XEDS signature: C, Al, Si, Fe and O should be main elements present.

3) Laclede primer contained epoxy binder (cured with some non-specified amine). Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) could provide an important proof of the presence of this binder, since epoxy resins show some typical peaks in FTIR spectra FTIR spectra , namely at ca 1510 cm-1, 1,610 cm-1, 1,247 cm-1 and near 1,182 cm-1 and 830 cm-1. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements could give another proof that the binder is epoxy, but this method requires a larger amount of samples. Moreover, epoxy binder in Laclede paint is insoluble (see later), and solid state NMR has to be used here, which requires even larger samples (usually over 50 mg).

4) As regards DSC, I would expect that Laclede paint chips will show exotherms peaking at ca 380-430 degrees C not only under air, but also under inert atmosphere. DSC measurements should be accompanied by TGA (thermogravimetric) measurements.

5) Laclede paint contained 4 % of strontium chromate. Since Sr and Cr peaks cannot be easily resolved by XEDS in this case, some atomic absorption spectrometry or mass spectrometry could help here.

6) Laclede paint chips cannot be soluble in any solvent, since their epoxy binder is cured/crosslinked. Depending on the density of crosslinks, such binder can only swell to some extent in good solvents like dimethylformamide, dimethylsulfoxide, tetrahydrofuran, chlorobenzene or some ketones (acetone, MEK).

7) Microscopy of red chips which show similar/same properties (XEDS, FTIR, DSC, TGA) as chips (a) to (d) in Bentham paper should reveal the similar microscopic appearance (nanosized iron oxide and aluminosilicate, e.g.).

I can be wrong in some respects and I can still be wrong in the basic assumption that chips (a) to (d) were particles of primer applied on the WTC floor trusses. But, it seems to be very probable:cool:
 
Last edited:
Its amazing the amount of apologetics going on here. Harrit et al ran a test that was conducted by someone who made NT. They weren't testing it to identify it. They were testing it to observe its properties in a non-nert environment. Did Harrit bother asking what test should be run to identify NT from the actual lab he was referencing? Try answering directly.
 
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...
What happens if they're unable to create a model showing how explosives could have caused the failures as known? What would that indicate?
 
000063 said:
What happens if they're unable to create a model showing how explosives could have caused the failures as known? What would that indicate?
Click to expand...

Even better, a model of what should have happened. Why is it that the so called experts in the TM cower away from actually demonstrating their BS?
 
LSSBB said:
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???
Click to expand...

Role playing action games are a multibillion dollar industry. The simulations can be programmed so that reactions to force, are realistic. The must subtle nuance must be anticipated and programmed.

The programming of an accurate simulation, if it were possible, of a "COLLAPSE" would be child's play in comparison to the complexity of a popular state of the art role playing game.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Role playing action games are a multibillion dollar industry.
Click to expand...
The bold is the part you don't understand. You see, when you become an adult, you can use your brain to decide what part is reality and what is fiction. I have hopes, someday you will discover this. Until then, Mom wants you to do your homework and then wash up for supper. After that (If you're good) you can play with your "friends".
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Role playing action games are a multibillion dollar industry. The simulations can be programmed so that reactions to force, are realistic. The must subtle nuance must be anticipated and programmed.

The programming of an accurate simulation, if it were possible, of a "COLLAPSE" would be child's play in comparison to the complexity of a popular state of the art role playing game.
Click to expand...

Since you are not answering the question as intended, and I cannot fathom what question you are answering, maybe I should restate it two different ways, take your pick:

Assuming a simulation failed to reflect reality, could that be because of a failure in the formulation of the simulation, and not because the premise was false?

How does the failure of a simulation of a theory PROVE something that was not included in the theory?

As far as a simulation of a multistory complex building being "child's play", there is a wide variation in combustible materials within the building, there are variations in the manufacturing quality of all of the structural members of the building, there are possible seismic fractures to the foundation and so on, in fact there is such an overwhelming number of variables involved, that it is nowhere near child's play. A monte-carlo simulation alone involving just a few of the structural members, their joining methods and material quality variations alone would be a complicated affair.
 
LSSBB said:
Since you are not answering the question as intended, and I cannot fathom what question you are answering, maybe I should restate it two different ways, take your pick:

Assuming a simulation failed to reflect reality, could that be because of a failure in the formulation of the simulation, and not because the premise was false?

How does the failure of a simulation of a theory PROVE something that was not included in the theory?

As far as a simulation of a multistory complex building being "child's play", there is a wide variation in combustible materials within the building, there are variations in the manufacturing quality of all of the structural members of the building, there are possible seismic fractures to the foundation and so on, in fact there is such an overwhelming number of variables involved, that it is nowhere near child's play. A monte-carlo simulation alone involving just a few of the structural members, their joining methods and material quality variations alone would be a complicated affair.
Click to expand...

Think redundancy and a billion permutations a second. Feel better? Not as boggling as you thought.

It's a building. I'm sure realistic interaction between animated human beings and realistic interaction between animated human beings and their environment would be much more complex to program.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Think redundancy and a billion permutations a second. Feel better? Not as boggling as you thought.

It's a building. I'm sure realistic interaction between animated human beings and realistic interaction between animated human beings and their environment would be much more complex to program.
Click to expand...

Sim CD's?
 
you cant fix stupid and you cant model chaos

Clayton Moore said:
Think redundancy and a billion permutations a second. Feel better? Not as boggling as you thought.

It's a building. I'm sure realistic interaction between animated human beings and realistic interaction between animated human beings and their environment would be much more complex to program.
Click to expand...
think of an egg hitting the ground and splattering. now model it exactly matching how the yolk would spread,
 
Clayton Moore said:
Role playing action games are a multibillion dollar industry. The simulations can be programmed so that reactions to force, are realistic. The must subtle nuance must be anticipated and programmed.

The programming of an accurate simulation, if it were possible, of a "COLLAPSE" would be child's play in comparison to the complexity of a popular state of the art role playing game.
Click to expand...

Role playing GAMES are just that - games. People created them, and are 100% controlled. A simulation of the collapse can't say this. There are major differences that you'll have to figure out on your own.

We can't always hold your hand.
 
LSSBB said:
Since you are not answering the question as intended, and I cannot fathom what question you are answering, maybe I should restate it two different ways, take your pick:

Assuming a simulation failed to reflect reality, could that be because of a failure in the formulation of the simulation, and not because the premise was false?

How does the failure of a simulation of a theory PROVE something that was not included in the theory?

As far as a simulation of a multistory complex building being "child's play", there is a wide variation in combustible materials within the building, there are variations in the manufacturing quality of all of the structural members of the building, there are possible seismic fractures to the foundation and so on, in fact there is such an overwhelming number of variables involved, that it is nowhere near child's play. A monte-carlo simulation alone involving just a few of the structural members, their joining methods and material quality variations alone would be a complicated affair.
Click to expand...

It has to with points of failure causing other points of failure one at a time, like dominoes.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It has to with points of failure causing other points of failure one at a time, like dominoes.
Click to expand...
I still don't see the causal link. What "points of failure" do you mean? Your Controlled Demolition theory can be proved only by its own evidence and simulations, not by the failure of another simulation to prove it's theorem.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Think redundancy and a billion permutations a second. Feel better? Not as boggling as you thought.

It's a building. I'm sure realistic interaction between animated human beings and realistic interaction between animated human beings and their environment would be much more complex to program.
Click to expand...

Sure, simulating a human is more complex, however ROLE PLAYING GAMES are not trying to reproduce an actual scenario, so they don't have to use all of the variables and take into account all the weird patterns inside a person's brain that lead them to do crazy things. Trying to recreate what happened inside a Big Black Box when you don't have the exact state of what was going on inside that Big Black Box is very difficult and dependent on a huge array of unknowns. It is not a simple thing at all.
 
NoahFence said:
Excellent!

So you'll be the first truther to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak?

You'll be doing that for us?
Click to expand...

I rarely expect you and you and you to get anything. The difference is that I know things. I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.

Whereas you all know that the egg would break.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom