Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Clayton Moore]

What are you basing this conclusion on?

Your question.

"Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.

 

[triforcharity]

He was asking you to explain your reasoning.

 

[000063]

That wasn't my question.

Alan Turing's ghost would like a word with you.

There's a difference between you not saying something, and a point that can be inferred by what you actually said. If you say "the sky is blue", it can be inferred that you know what a)the sky is, and b)what the color "blue" is, at the very least.

Clay, do you think that programming an egg falling to the ground and breaking with perfect or near perfect predictive accuracy would be difficult and time-consuming, even for this team of experienced programmers with the necessary software? "Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.

I left the rest of the post in because it demonstrates what I am asking for now. If you said "the sky is blue", I would assume you know what the sky is, know what blue is, are capable of comparing the color of the sky to the color blue and have actually done so.

What factual basis and reasoning leads you to conclude that programming an egg drop would not be "difficult and time consuming"? Citations, please.

 

[Clayton Moore]

He was asking you to explain your reasoning.

Quote:
"Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.


Besides the fact I was asked to answer as stated above I explained her request in a recent post.

 

[NoahFence]

You don't answer even the simplest of question no matter how politely they are put to you so we have nothing to lose at all if say you are guilty of a terminological in-exactitude. When you lie you can't then whine about people calling you a liar.

So I'm not the only one tired of that particular tactic by those people.

I'm simply the least polite of 'em. As I told MM in particular, but it goes for all of 'em - simple answers to simple questions would go a long way to gaining our respect.

 

[NoahFence]

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

Domino effect.

Sort of say....

...Islamic fundamentalist hijacks plane followed by plane smashing into a building causing massive damage followed by massive unfought fire weakening structural components followed by structural components failing?

That sounds pretty plausible.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Have you heard of dominoes? The destruction of all three WTC buildings, without explosives, required a domino effect.

If you mean that all collapses required progressive failures, then you're correct, although that's not the commonly or professionally accepted definition of the term "domino effect". However, the domino effect is one where the freedom of motion of each component is highly restricted - each domino is effectively restricted to pivoting about an axis formed by one of the long edges of its short side, and therefore has only a single degree of freedom and a limited range of movement - so it's quite trivial to analyse the movement of a line of dominoes, because each can only progress from vertical to as near horizontal as is possible given that another domino is now underneath the upper end. Also making it trivial is the fact that the interactions are basically one-way, and in a known sequence; each domino can only knock over any domino in the way of its rotation. In contrast, every element of the failing structure of a WTC building has six degrees of freedom, every element can affect the motion of, and be affected by the motion of, all elements connected to it, and the motion of other components affects the range of motion of each component. To describe this as in any way comparable to the trivial analysis of a series of dominoes falling over - assuming that's what the above careful attempt at avoiding making an identifiably relevant statement is intended to give Clayton Moore the freedom to deny having said as soon as anyone contests it - is far beyond laughable.

Dave

 

[000063]

Quote:
"Yes/no/I don't know." Pick one.


Besides the fact I was asked to answer as stated above I explained her request in a recent post.

Je suis une garcon, and I've already asked you a subsequent question, and then rephrased it. In the post above yours, in fact. Perhaps you missed it.

Clay, if I ask you the time, and you say 8:00, and I ask you how you know, a valid answer would be "I looked at a watch" or "I looked at a clock", or "I heard the town clock ringing" or "I have the freakish ability to know the exact time at all times", or suchlike. Repeating "It is 8:00." is not.

 

[grandmastershek]

Check it out in the YouTube video of Dr. Harrit speaking at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto if you any doubts Oystein.

MM

Where he says he asks Tilloston about the environment it was ignited in, not if such a test is useful for determining if something is nanothermite.

 

[Miragememories]

Where he says he asks Tilloston about the environment it was ignited in, not if such a test is useful for determining if something is nanothermite.

How could asking the author of a nano-thermite paper, what his test environment was, be not useful in determining if something was or was not nano-thermite?

MM

 

[chrismohr]

How could asking the author of a nano-thermite paper, what his test environment was, be not useful in determining if something was or was not nano-thermite?

MM

Hi MM,

If that's a serious question, then here's the answer: if you know you have nanothermite as Tillotoson did, you don't have to test for nanothermite. You're just investigating the qualities of nanothermite, such as how much energy is released, at what temperature it spontaneously ignites, how stable it is, etc.

If you have some kind of powder and you don't know what it is, you have to do other tests to determine what you have. For example: nanothermite burns without oxygen. So, you heat up the dust in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. If it doesn't ignite at all, it may need oxygen to burn and it's not nanothermite. If it does ignite, you do the next test, whatever that might be. You do a series of tests (like spectographic analysis, ignition temperature) to eliminate other things it could be. Totally different process.

 

[Oystein]

Hi MM,

If that's a serious question, then here's the answer: if you know you have nanothermite as Tillotoson did, you don't have to test for nanothermite. You're just investigating the qualities of nanothermite, such as how much energy is released, at what temperature it spontaneously ignites, how stable it is, etc.

If you have some kind of powder and you don't know what it is, you have to do other tests to determine what you have. For example: nanothermite burns without oxygen. So, you heat up the dust in an argon or nitrogen atmosphere. If it doesn't ignite at all, it may need oxygen to burn and it's not nanothermite. If it does ignite, you do the next test, whatever that might be. You do a series of tests (like spectographic analysis, ignition temperature) to eliminate other things it could be. Totally different process.

In my "Origin of the paint" thread, MM has also shown that he does not understand that the methods scientists use and the things they look at depend on their objectives. Different objectives -> different tests.

For example, he informs us that NIST looked at Tnemec primer and how it behaves under certain temperatures to find out the temperatures certain steel was subjected to. Then he goes on to say that I, who has the totally different objective of identifying the source and make of paint chips, ought not consider LaClede primer because NIST did not consider LaClede for their heat tests.

Sounds unreal? That's our MM!

 

[grandmastershek]

How could asking the author of a nano-thermite paper, what his test environment was, be not useful in determining if something was or was not nano-thermite?

MM

Because his test environment wasn't to establish what the material was made of? For some reason I get the feeling he already knew what it was. But this has been pointed out o you ad nauseum, but either in your ignorance or self delusion pretend its irrelevant. Much like the primer paint test, you assume they were carrying out the study in ways or for reasons which there is 0 evidence to support they were.

 

[Oystein]

MM's logic is like that:

1. Tillotson produced lean cow milk from fresh cow milk. One property he was interested in was fat content, so he used method A which involved boiling the milk at 95%C to determine the fat content: It turned out to be 1.5%

2. Harrit finds 4 specimens of some unknown red liquid and wonders if that could be lean cow milk. So he used Tillotson's method A and finds his specimen boil at around 120°C and have a fat content of 1.5%, 3%, 6% and 7.5%, respectively. Comparing with Tillotsons data, Harrit concludes that the red liquid must be lean cow milk.

3. JREF debunkers point out that the liquid is red, not white; boils at 120°C, not 95°C; and contains up to 5 times more fat than lean milk - in fact, two of the specimen contain more fat than any cow milk could possibly do. They conclude the red liquid can't be any kind of milk, and certainly is not lean milk.

4. MM declares that method A is the definitive test for lean milk, and defers to the authority of Harrit and friends.


It should be clear that [ETA]method A is not a definitive test procedure to identify an unknown substance as lean cow milk, because[/ETA] even if a liquid contains the expected 1.5% and boils near 95°, that is not proof it's lean cow milk. It might as well be soy milk, a roux, or some paint based on a water-oil emulsion. But the specimen do not match expectations - the values are wrong and prove it can't possibly be lean cow milk!

 

[Myriad]

"I didn't test the chips in an argon atmosphere because the buildings weren't demolished in an argon atmosphere." I've been trying to find the words to express how amusingly obtuse that assertion is. So far, the best I can do is analogies.

"We didn't test the new fighter plane design in a wind tunnel because fighter pilots don't dogfight in wind tunnels."

"I didn't refrigerate the milk because cows don't live in refrigerators and people don't drink milk in refrigerators."

"Find the puncture in the inner tube by holding it underwater? That won't work. I wasn't riding the bicycle underwater when the puncture happened."

"No, Watson, put that magnifying glass away. We needn't examine the murder scene with a magnifying glass because the murderer didn't kill the victim with a magnifying glass. Elementary."

(Or the CSI/Law and Order crossover version: "Dr. Grissom, you've testified that you examined the crime scene using an ultraviolet light. Tell me... was the crime committed in ultraviolet light? It's a simple question, Doctor. YES OR NO!?")

"I didn't perform your knee surgery under sterile conditions because your knee wasn't injured under sterile conditions."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sheeplesnshills]

How could asking the author of a nano-thermite paper, what his test environment was, be not useful in determining if something was or was not nano-thermite?

MM

You still don't seem to have grasped that a test to find data on a known material would not be the same test as one would perform on an unknown material.

If you want to find the energy output of a known nanothermite it doesn't matter if you use an inert or oxygen rich atmosphere, the result is the same as thermite does not use the oxygen in the air in its reaction. Why waste money on adding the inert atmosphere when it irrelevant to that test?

However if you do not know what you are testing then igniting the substance in air simply causes it to burn whether its thermite or paint so you learn nothing at all about it being thermitic (however we did learn that its energy output is too high meaning it can't be thermite

The two test have quite different purposes so require require different methodologies.

MM, do you understand now why testing in an inert atmosphere is not optional in this case?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You still don't seem to have grasped that a test to find data on a known material would not be the same test as one would perform on an unknown material.

Give up, guys. Miragememories has made it perfectly clear he's incapable of making that distinction. Why keep on repeating an argument for someone who's admitted he can't possibly understand it?

Dave

 

[chrismohr]

Dust Testing Progress Report

Hi all,

I sent out five requests for testing of the WTC dust samples. I think some of these leads are excellent. We'll see what they say. Once I find an independent lab that can definitely test for thermite, thermate or nanothermite, we'll go from there.

 

[DGM]

Hi all,

I sent out five requests for testing of the WTC dust samples. I think some of these leads are excellent. We'll see what they say. Once I find an independent lab that can definitely test for thermite, thermate or nanothermite, we'll go from there.

You do know if they agree and don't find "therm*te" they were bought off the "them"?

I still say with your connection to a multitude of scientists, start by asking for a "peer-review" of what they already have. This would be a nice little baseline of their methods at the very least.

 

[DGM]

Chris:
I look at this like the "moon hoax". How many different labs have examined lunar samples? Has this swayed that crowed? How dissimilar are the numbers between the 9/11 "truthers" and the "moon hoaxers"?