Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

Hey Chris7,
You say FFA and the pattern of the Bldg7 fires are important, but they just aren't to me. They are to you but not to me.

These critical facts are not important to you? Then you are not a serious investigator. You hand wave the proof that NIST did not explain the collapse and scientific conformation of FFA as minutiae - that is just plain denial of the critical evidence.

When confronted with the fact that the NIST model is providing resistance during the free fall period, you refuse to respond.

When confronted with the FACT that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~100 feet, you call it minutiae. In your video you try to downplay it by saying it was only 8 floors out of 267 fell at FFA and engineers you have talked to say that this is insignificant. That is not true, it is very significant. Give the names of these engineers or remove that claim from your video.

In your video, you repeatedly say that one wall fell at FFA but you have admitted that at least three walls fell together at FFA. You also admit that NIST said the entire upper part moved downward as a single unit so how can you say it was only one wall? You need to make that correction to your video.

At 3:07 you say that FFA does not prove CD by comparing it to other CDs that don't fall at FFA. So what? WTC 7 was 170 feet taller than any building previously imploded and they needed to get it going faster than other buildings to make sure it would collapse completely. A demolitions expert told you that WTC 7 was overkill. That means they used more explosives than necessary to make sure.

At 4:14 you compare steel framework to breaking sticks but it has been shown that steel columns do not [and did not] break like sticks. You need to make that correction to your video.

At 4:58 you said that NIST used a video tape looking straight at the north perimeter wall and show the CBS video. That is incorrect. They used camera 3 on the ground looking up at the building. You need to make that correction to your video.

At 6:00 you say "There was a tremendous amount of smoke coming from the building just before the collapse as you can see here." That is not true. The smoke is from WTC 5 and 6. You need to make that correction to your video.

At 6:20 you say that WTC 7 was not a symmetrical collapse like CDs but that is not true. WTC 7 fell straight down and then to one side as CDs often do.
See 1:31 of this video for 3 comparisons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
You need to make that correction to your video.

At 7:19 you say that the columns at the top were weakened by 7 hours of fires. That is incorrect. There were no fires above floor 30 at any time and no fires above floor 13 after 1 p.m. You need to make that correction to your video.

At 7:26 you say "The small kink along the top of the building was evidence of columns about to buckle mostly at the weaker welded connections".
At 7:42 you say "triggering more column breaks at the welded connections"
You are talking thru your hat. You have no idea where the columns would have buckled.

At 8:36 you say "The entire collapsing building is not the system we are measuring. We are measuring only the collapse speed of the north perimeter wall." This ignores the fact that the entire upper part of the building is falling AS A SINGLE UNIT - AS OBSERVED.

At 10:21 you say "The connective forces between parts of the building may have briefly accelerated parts of it at greater than one G, more than overcoming any slight resistance of the already buckled columns."
This ignores the fact that by the time the columns had buckled to the point where they would only be providing slight resistance, the building would have descended at least 20 feet and that is well into the FFA part of the collapse.

Your lever analysis is pure speculation and double talk. and your "possible than faster than free fall" is speculation due to not understanding that the data points are not exact as has been noted by both sides in this thread. There was no "faster than free fall". You need to make that correction in your video.

At 10:52 you say "How can thermate explain a possibler than faster free fall drop?" There was no faster than free fall drop. But to answer your question - The same way you have it occurring in a progressive collapse, with levers.

At 10:59 you talk about thermate but this ignores the existence of nano-thermite which can be made explosive and you have absolutely no idea how it could have been used.

At 11:08 And if thermates were used on the outer columns there would be hundreds of blinding lights thru the windows with no dust to block the view."
That is not true. There was thick smoke from a car on fire covering the lower floors at the time of the collapse.


When confronted with the FACT that the fire on floor 12 had burned out and did not start the collapse you refuse to accept that reality. NIST failing to explain the collapse is not minutiae, it means they did not fulfill their objective and other possibilities must be investigated.

It is clear that nothing will change your mind because you just ignore any facts that prove the NIST theory is invalid.

 

[Christopher7]

I am working on the re-re-rebuttal of the 238 reasons for the chrismohr911 site.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative you have just wasted a lot of time thinking up reasons not to believe something.

A sincere investigator doesn't think up reasons not to believe a particular conclusion. "It can't be because ... " is not investigating, it's denial fodder.

 

[MarkLindeman]

These critical facts are not important to you? Then you are not a serious investigator.

Apparently the very idea that someone might, in all seriousness, disagree with you is alien to you.

Your points have been addressed repeatedly on this thread. It's a shame that you resort to a personal attack. If you think your arguments have any merit, you should consider that they deserve a better advocate.

 

[chrismohr]

Apparently the very idea that someone might, in all seriousness, disagree with you is alien to you.

Your points have been addressed repeatedly on this thread. It's a shame that you resort to a personal attack. If you think your arguments have any merit, you should consider that they deserve a better advocate.

Actually, by JREF standards Chris7's response is very low on personal attack and high on content. I still disagree with most points he makes.

Chris7, here's where I stand around what I said at 3:07 (Gage has implied that CD = freefall, and they are separate things; the anonymous "demolitions expert" was in fact David Chandler who didn't want to be dragged into my debate so I took his name out of the corrected video 18); 4:14 (I already said breaking sticks are not identical to bending columns, and I remain unclear which actually happened in Building 7 after a lot of honest research... but if a bent column has around 2% of its normal strength it matters not); 4:58 (I will correct that if I am wrong but multiple people have told me the CBS north-face shot is the video NIST used); 6:00 (you are wrong as sin; smoke was pouring out of many many Building 7 floors much more than it was floating in from other buildings); 6:20 (it's Gage who says symmetrical collapse into its own footprint = CD which I rebutted; after 2 seconds I observe the building falling heavily southwards); 7:19 (tell Tri there weren't many fires in Building 7); 7:26 (NIST says failure of column 79 happened around, what, floor 12?; that seems valid but I made a more general statement; I know what NIST said); 8:36 (I've told you a googleplex times that this NIST statement is not gospel and I agree the "as a single unit" phrase only as a visual observation, not as a precise measurement of exactly what was happening along the tops of all four walls and no, I won't waste taxpayer money asking them about this too); 10:21 (the NIST model and the observations are not always in 100% alignment; have you forgotten that NIST and everyone here has said this repeatedly?); my lever analysis is speculation based on extensive conversations with structural engineers/physicists here... I just show a way that other forces besides gravity and resistance can be at play in a collapse... and Gage's assertion that these are the ONLY two forces in play is worse than speculation, it's factually incorrect and misleads his lay audiences); 10:52 (thanks for acknowledging the possibility that leveraging and torquing can bring down parts of a building faster than gravity vs resistance alone!; I stand by my point that gravity vs resistance alone CANNOT explain this phenomenon); 10:59 (before our debate I asked Gage about the demolition materials and he told me he believed that nanothermites were used in the towers and thermate used in Building 7 to create explosive and impolsive collapses respectively; since I was and am debating Gage I am simply responding to what he asserted to me); 11:08 (one car's smoke covered blinding lights emanating from the entire north face of the building? Everyone who has seen this video can see that the view of the windows along the entire north face is highly visible during the collapse! Is this a joke?); the fire AT THE WINDOW on floor 12 left well before the collapse, OK I acknowledge this, but 1) No one knows how long the fires continued inside the building on floor 12, and 2) the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat agrees with the NIST Report but suggests that after sagging steel beams cooled down they may have undergone thermal contraction, which NIST did not discuss and which my explain how damage can continue on floors where fires have left... and I discuss this in my video). Dang that's the longest sentence I ever wrote; I hope my college English profs never read this post!

 

[000063]

Nothing like viewing a video sequentially to determine what points were made.
Kinda squelches any possibility of debate.

Can't stand any format you can't nitpick and quote-mine, eh, Clay?

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, by JREF standards Chris7's response is very low on personal attack and high on content. I still disagree with most points he makes.

Thank you Chris. I did not mean to attack you, I just noted that you are denying critical evidence and pointed out some errors in your video.

4:14 (I already said breaking sticks are not identical to bending columns, and I remain unclear which actually happened in Building 7 after a lot of honest research... but if a bent column has around 2% of its normal strength it matters not);

It is an invalid comparison. Steel does NOT snap like a stick. The NIST model has the columns buckling, not snapping like sticks, well into the FFA of Stage 2.

The 2% is not reached until the column has folded almost in half. The engineer forum told you that the loss of strength is small at the beginning of the buckling and increases as the column buckles further.

4:58 (I will correct that if I am wrong but multiple people have told me the CBS north-face shot is the video NIST used);

You are getting a lot of bad advise from the people at this very biased pro-government-theory forum.

Finding the truth is very easy and if you had investigated yourself by using the "find" function as I just did, you would have found this:

The timing of global collapse of WTC 7, as indicated by downward motion of the north exterior face, was investigated using a video of the collapse taken from the vantage point of West Street near Harrison Street
(Camera No. 3, Figure 5-183 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9). NCSTAR 1A pg 44 [pdf pg 86] Also see Figure 5-186 for screenshot from camera 3.

6:00 (you are wrong as sin; smoke was pouring out of many many Building 7 floors much more than it was floating in from other buildings);

You should read the final report. Some traumatized firefighters looking at the SW corner overstated the fires. NIST did a thorough investigation and listed the fires that were confirmed by the photo and video evidence. I have listed them here several times. There is NO evidence to support your claim that there was a tremendous amount of smoke coming from WTC 7 just before the collapse. Please make this correction.

6:20 (it's Gage who says symmetrical collapse into its own footprint = CD which I rebutted; after 2 seconds I observe the building falling heavily southwards)

You are playing games with semantics. The definition of symmetrical is subjective and your claim of rebuttal is false. I posted the URL of a video with 3 comparisons where the demolition falls to one side. This is common in CDs.

The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.
NIST appendix L pg 33 [pdf pg 37]

At 7:19 you say that the columns at the top were weakened by 7 hours of fires. That is incorrect. There were no fires above floor 30 at any time and no fires above floor 13 after 1 p.m. You need to make that correction to your video.

7:19 (tell Tri there weren't many fires in Building 7)

Tell NIST they got it wrong. Why do you believe Tri and not NIST? They studied all the evidence and you have not. There is NO evidence of fires on the top floors at any time. The smoke up the side has been explained to you more than once. It was NOT fire coming from every floor of WTC 7. See NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162] and NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 196 [pdf pg 240]

7:26 (NIST says failure of column 79 happened around, what, floor 12?; that seems valid but I made a more general statement

NIST says column 79 buckled between floor 5 and 14.

8:36 (I've told you a googleplex times that this NIST statement is not gospel and I agree the "as a single unit" phrase only as a visual observation, not as a precise measurement of exactly what was happening along the tops of all four walls

The FFA went on for ~100 feet. The other walls could not have been falling at a different speed all that time. The entire upper part WAS falling at FFA.

I won't waste taxpayer money asking them about this too)

Cop-out. It's a simple but critical question that would not take much time to answer. NIST stated that the entire upper part of the building moved downward as a single unit [minus the part that had already collapsed is assumed by reasonable people].

Just ask him if NIST stands by that statement and why. Then we can resolve the issue. You should also ask him if NIST stands by their statement that WTC 7 fell at FFA so we can resolve that issue.

10:21 (the NIST model and the observations are not always in 100% alignment; have you forgotten that NIST and everyone here has said this repeatedly?)

It is nothing like the actual collapse.

my lever analysis is speculation based on extensive conversations with structural engineers/physicists here

The [anonymous] structural engineers/physicists here will say anything. Find unbiased structural engineers and physicists to check out leverage analysis before using it in a rebuttal of structural engineers and physicists with decades of experience.

The leverage theory is garbage. It could not happen during 100 feet of FFA. To get the leverage, the theory requires the core columns to hit resistance and a magical additional weight to suddenly appear. If the core columns met resistance, that would slow the descent, not speed it up. Even if it could, it would only be momentary and does NOT change the FACT that the upper part fell at FFA for ~100 feet.

This whole "faster than FFA" argument is a smokescreen to deny the scientifically established FACT that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~100 feet.

Gage's assertion that these are the ONLY two forces in play is worse than speculation, it's factually incorrect and misleads his lay audiences)

You are the one misleading people by using unsupported speculation by people who refuse to confirm their credentials for fear of being maligned the way they malign others.

10:52 (thanks for acknowledging the possibility that leveraging and torquing can bring down parts of a building faster than gravity vs resistance alone!

Only in the first moment when the core columns start pulling the exterior columns down. Once in motion the only factor was gravity, there was NO resistance. That's the definition of FFA. The resistance began after the 100 feet of FFA.

10:59 (before our debate I asked Gage about the demolition materials and he told me he believed that nanothermites were used in the towers and thermate used in Building 7 to create explosive and impolsive collapses respectively; since I was and am debating Gage I am simply responding to what he asserted to me)

You don't know what thermate can do either. Columns 79, 80 and 81 could have been taken out on mechanical and unoccupied floors using a device like the one Jon Cole invented in his back yard. Our military is the world's leading expert in blowing thing up and they have an unlimited budget. Saying that thermite/thermate/nano-thermite could not have done the job is just denial and not a valid argument against CD.

11:08 (one car's smoke covered blinding lights emanating from the entire north face of the building? Everyone who has seen this video can see that the view of the windows along the entire north face is highly visible during the collapse! Is this a joke?)

False statement. The entire north face was NOT visible!

The demolition took place on the lower floors and they were obscured by thick smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQA1KOKrPc&feature=channel_page

the fire AT THE WINDOW on floor 12 left well before the collapse, OK I acknowledge this, but 1) No one knows how long the fires continued inside the building on floor 12,

False. NIST clearly said the the fires lasted 20 to 30 minutes in any location.

That area was offices of similar size and there is no reason to think that the fire lasted appreciably longer than 30 minutes in any of those offices.

the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat agrees with the NIST Report but suggests that after sagging steel beams cooled down they may have undergone thermal contraction

That is a nice theory but it is NOT the NIST theory.

The NIST theory is wrong. There was no thermal expansion of the beams at 5:20 p.m. that supposedly pushed the girder off its seat to the west as the NIST theory requires.

NIST did NOT explain the collapse.

 

[chrismohr]

Thank you Chris. I did not mean to attack you, I just noted that you are denying critical evidence and pointed out some errors in your video.

It is an invalid comparison. Steel does NOT snap like a stick. The NIST model has the columns buckling, not snapping like sticks, well into the FFA of Stage 2.

The 2% is not reached until the column has folded almost in half. The engineer forum told you that the loss of strength is small at the beginning of the buckling and increases as the column buckles further.

You are getting a lot of bad advise from the people at this very biased pro-government-theory forum.

Finding the truth is very easy and if you had investigated yourself by using the "find" function as I just did, you would have found this:

The timing of global collapse of WTC 7, as indicated by downward motion of the north exterior face, was investigated using a video of the collapse taken from the vantage point of West Street near Harrison Street
(Camera No. 3, Figure 5-183 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9). NCSTAR 1A pg 44 [pdf pg 86] Also see Figure 5-186 for screenshot from camera 3.

You should read the final report. Some traumatized firefighters looking at the SW corner overstated the fires. NIST did a thorough investigation and listed the fires that were confirmed by the photo and video evidence. I have listed them here several times. There is NO evidence to support your claim that there was a tremendous amount of smoke coming from WTC 7 just before the collapse. Please make this correction.

You are playing games with semantics. The definition of symmetrical is subjective and your claim of rebuttal is false. I posted the URL of a video with 3 comparisons where the demolition falls to one side. This is common in CDs.

The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.
NIST appendix L pg 33 [pdf pg 37]


Tell NIST they got it wrong. Why do you believe Tri and not NIST? They studied all the evidence and you have not. There is NO evidence of fires on the top floors at any time. The smoke up the side has been explained to you more than once. It was NOT fire coming from every floor of WTC 7. See NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162] and NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 196 [pdf pg 240]

NIST says column 79 buckled between floor 5 and 14.

The FFA went on for ~100 feet. The other walls could not have been falling at a different speed all that time. The entire upper part WAS falling at FFA.

Cop-out. It's a simple but critical question that would not take much time to answer. NIST stated that the entire upper part of the building moved downward as a single unit [minus the part that had already collapsed is assumed by reasonable people].

Just ask him if NIST stands by that statement and why. Then we can resolve the issue. You should also ask him if NIST stands by their statement that WTC 7 fell at FFA so we can resolve that issue.

It is nothing like the actual collapse.

The [anonymous] structural engineers/physicists here will say anything. Find unbiased structural engineers and physicists to check out leverage analysis before using it in a rebuttal of structural engineers and physicists with decades of experience.

The leverage theory is garbage. It could not happen during 100 feet of FFA. To get the leverage, the theory requires the core columns to hit resistance and a magical additional weight to suddenly appear. If the core columns met resistance, that would slow the descent, not speed it up. Even if it could, it would only be momentary and does NOT change the FACT that the upper part fell at FFA for ~100 feet.

This whole "faster than FFA" argument is a smokescreen to deny the scientifically established FACT that WTC 7 fell at FFA for ~100 feet.

You are the one misleading people by using unsupported speculation by people who refuse to confirm their credentials for fear of being maligned the way they malign others.

Only in the first moment when the core columns start pulling the exterior columns down. Once in motion the only factor was gravity, there was NO resistance. That's the definition of FFA. The resistance began after the 100 feet of FFA.

You don't know what thermate can do either. Columns 79, 80 and 81 could have been taken out on mechanical and unoccupied floors using a device like the one Jon Cole invented in his back yard. Our military is the world's leading expert in blowing thing up and they have an unlimited budget. Saying that thermite/thermate/nano-thermite could not have done the job is just denial and not a valid argument against CD.

False statement. The entire north face was NOT visible!

The demolition took place on the lower floors and they were obscured by thick smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KQA1KOKrPc&feature=channel_page

False. NIST clearly said the the fires lasted 20 to 30 minutes in any location.

That area was offices of similar size and there is no reason to think that the fire lasted appreciably longer than 30 minutes in any of those offices.

That is a nice theory but it is NOT the NIST theory.

The NIST theory is wrong. There was no thermal expansion of the beams at 5:20 p.m. that supposedly pushed the girder off its seat to the west as the NIST theory requires.

NIST did NOT explain the collapse.

It looks like Chris7 is right about the least important thing... which camera NIST used to determine the rate of collapse of Building 7. Unless anyone can prove him wrong, my research shows he is correct. My mistake and I will make the correction, even though it is completely irrelevant to the main issues of CD vs natural collapse.

You may want to take up with Gage the fact that I rebutted what he said, such claims as "symmetrical collapse... into its own footprint.." plus "nanothermite for an explosive demolition of W#TC I and II, thermate for implosive demo of Building 7." That's what he claimed and that's what I rebutted. Your claim that I have no idea what thermate can do is simply false and ignores the FACT that I was rebutting Gage's claims. If you don't like what he says, take it up with him.

I'm glad you think CTBUH has a nice theory. I think it's a great addition to the NIST account and clarifies things better than the NIST Report alone. That's why I don't limit myself to what NIST says. Other scientists and organizations have offered input as well, and they ALL support the main findings of the NIST account.

In a big giant office building like Building 7, it may well be true that fires burn out after about 30 minutes in any one office area. But Building 7 is a BIG area. I still say we don't know which parts of which floors were burning internally at what times. Are you actually suggesting that a whole huge floor burns itself out for 30 minutes as a single unit?

YOU ask NIST whatever you want to know. Why have me do your work?

No NET resistance, ya know.

Big fires with smoke pouring out of most floors (except a few of the top floors) observed in countless photos and videos I have watched is evidence.

I say no thermite/thermate because I hired Jim Millete to look for it and he couldn't find it. I say no thermite/thermate because the chemical signature isn't there for it in the debris. I say no CD because there is no evidence of any detonation devices, no blazing lights, nothing. Nada. I don't say it couldn't be there, I don't deny the military blows things up and has a big budget, I look for evidence and find none. Nada.

Good job keeping a burned-out guy like me in continuing conversation. Thank you for the one correction I think I'll make. The rest of your complaints still look invalid to me.

 

[Christopher7]

You may want to take up with Gage the fact that I rebutted what he said, such claims as "symmetrical collapse... into its own footprint.."

You are still playing with semantics.

You define "symmetrical" differently. So what? That is not a rebuttal, it's is a child's game oft played by the fanatically faithful.

plus "nanothermite for an explosive demolition of W#TC I and II, thermate for implosive demo of Building 7." That's what he claimed and that's what I rebutted.

No you did not! You don't have a clue what the various forms of thermite can do so stop proclaiming that you do. That is dishonest.

Your claim that I have no idea what thermate can do is simply false

BS You could not possibly know the state of the art because the information is classified.

and ignores the FACT that I was rebutting Gage's claims.

You are not rebutting something when you make false statements like "In could not have been thermate." YOU DON'T KNOW!

I'm glad you think CTBUH has a nice theory. I think it's a great addition to the NIST account and clarifies things better than the NIST Report alone.

You are being absurd now.

It is NOT an addition to the NIST report, it's speculation made by an individual and it is NOT what NIST stated as the cause of the triggering event.

I have heard all this before. You are reading from the JREF playbook of denial.

That's why I don't limit myself to what NIST says. Other scientists and organizations have offered input as well, and they ALL support the main findings of the NIST account.

That does not change the FACT that the fire had burned out and did not trigger the collapse. Those organizations have discredited themselves for failing to see the many fatal flaws in the NIST report. CTBUH actually did see a fatal flaw but refused to admit that it was a fatal flaw. Instead they offered an alternate theory, but that does not change the blatantly impossible NIST conclusion.

In a big giant office building like Building 7, it may well be true that fires burn out after about 30 minutes in any one office area. But Building 7 is a BIG area. I still say we don't know which parts of which floors were burning internally at what times.

Speak for yourself. The progression of the fire on floor 12 is well documented by photographs and videos.

Are you actually suggesting that a whole huge floor burns itself out for 30 minutes as a single unit?

Now you are playing the JREF game of jumping to a ridiculous conclusion and posing it as a question trying to imply that's what I think.

YOU ask NIST whatever you want to know. Why have me do your work?

You are the one claiming that NIST is wrong and you know better. Write your friend and tell him that before making claims in a so called "rebuttal" video.

No NET resistance, ya know.

Junk science/double talk. Your silly "leverage" causing greater than FFA is irrelevant. NIST said that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet. Do you really expect people outside this echo chamber to believe your claim that NIST is wrong and you know better?

If you wish to refute them, tell your friend at NIST about it and see what he says before using that crap to insult Mr. Gage by saying you have refuted him.

Get it straight Chris, you are NOT refuting Mr. Gage, you are refuting NIST.

Big fires with smoke pouring out of most floors (except a few of the top floors) observed in countless photos and videos I have watched is evidence.

False! Again you claim to know better than NIST. You don't. The counter arguments I made came from the NIST report but they just did not register. You just ignore anything that proves you wrong.

I say no thermite/thermate because I hired Jim Millete to look for it and he couldn't find it.

He did not do the critical test of raising the temperature to the ignition point of ~430^oC. He did not find a thermitic reaction because he did not look for one. SOS.

If he could heat the chip to 400^oC then he could heat it to 430^oC and prove or disprove a thermitic reaction. The fact that he could have and did not says it all. You did not get your money's worth. He did not prove anything.

I say no thermite/thermate because the chemical signature isn't there for it in the debris.

Yes it is, on Sample 1.

Now you run the chapter from the deniers playbook on "It can't be because". That is NOT a valid approach to determining if thermite was used, it's just a denial tactic. It is clear that you have been absorbed by the Borg, or you always were part of it.

I say no CD because there is no evidence of any detonation devices

The debris was destroyed as fast as possible. Cameras were banned at the site.

no blazing lights, nothing

Smoke obscured the demolition zone.

I look for evidence and find none.

That's because they destroyed the evidence.

Your passive aggressive behavior, masked by your "polite" refusal to address anything that refutes your position, your posts here and your videos, don't refute anything but your creditability.

Enjoy the praise in this echo chamber, that's all you've got.

 

[beachnut]

...
The demolition took place on the lower floors and they were obscured by thick smoke. ... NIST did NOT explain the collapse.

How can NIST explain anything to people with delusions of demolition. The demolition of the WTC complex is nonsesne when you add up the evidence. Not understand gravity collaspes due to fire might fool some.

The big problem besides no evidence, you can't name who did it. Watergate named people, your theories are in the fantasy stage, and will remain there forever; like Bigfoot.

19 terrorists did 911. Don't do anything using commercial planes, they have your names when you board.

When you support Gage, you fail. You think you have ample evidence, why can't you produce it? As you concentrate on WTC junk, what the heck will you do with Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon, and the Passengers on Flight 93 figuring out 911 in minutes and taking action, attacking their murderers. Your fantasy has no end, as you run away from reality for 10 years to eternity. How do 77 and 93 fit in your fantasy of CD at the WTC?

Why can't 911 truth in 10 years, Given 10 Years, what Flight 93 Passengers did in minutes; figure out 911 under pressure and take action! 10 YEARS of failure for 911 truth.

 

[Miragememories]

I would be surprised if we hear much more from Millette and his supposed investigation into the WTC dust.

He got his report out, and he scored some cash along the way for testing he was going to do on his own dime anyway.

The $1,000 paid for the time he spent corresponding with Chris Mohr.

As Christopher7 pointed out, Millette steered clear of the critical DSC testing that could have truly put the thermite question to rest.

Those on the side of the Official Story appear to want nothing to do with the DSC testing that the Bentham Paper proved showed thermitic activity in the WTC dust.

MM

 

[chrismohr]

"I say no thermite/thermate because I hired Jim Millete to look for it and he couldn't find it."
"He did not do the critical test of raising the temperature to the ignition point of ~430oC. He did not find a thermitic reaction because he did not look for one. SOS."

"If he could heat the chip to 400oC then he could heat it to 430oC and prove or disprove a thermitic reaction. The fact that he could have and did not says it all. You did not get your money's worth. He did not prove anything."

I will pass your quote on to Jim Millette right now, Chris7. And MM, I have asked Millette repeatedly about the DSC test and he says it would only show the ignition temperature of a paint chip; it's not the test of choice to give evidence for thermitic material.

Who was that guy who offered $300 towards a DSC test? I got the names of two labs who could do it from Millette, posted it, and never heard from him again.

Chris7 you are way too quick to blow off Millette. His was an excellent study, worth many more times than the $1000 I raised from people on both sides of the argument. You say I'm in an exho chamber, that I ignore evidence etc., yet I'm the ONLY one to make a serious effort to replicate the Bentham paper, asking NIST question after question until now I am finally too embarrased to keep asking what I consider dumb questions, etc. I don't appreciate my efforts being hand-waved by you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As you know I have respected and supported your willingness to go way beyond either necessity or the "call of duty" in attempting to assist C7 and others of his ilk. Whilst my own position has been different - I don't engage in counter trolling and long ago decided that discussion with C7 would merely go round in circles. My decision validated by the history of this and similar threads.

Took the words out of my mouth. I think it's fine provided that he's aware of the scope of which his efforts can carry, and I think chrismohr was. As I've said before, the experiments clarified some stuff that people figured for a long time but didn't know 100%. Those who believed the buildings were demolished in the first place were never going to be convinced in the first place, and the experiment doesn't need to satisfy them to have value. The moment thermite is eliminated according to their demands, they will jump right back to pre-planted explosives; welcome to whack-a-mole

 

[carlitos]

You are still playing with semantics.

You define "symmetrical" differently. So what? That is not a rebuttal, it's is a child's game oft played by the fanatically faithful.

Symmetrical means symmetrical. Just FYI.

It's a super-duper-heavy-duty shocker that proponents of woo / nonsense would redefine common English terms to suit their "arguments." We've never seen that before.

 

[Miragememories]

" "I say no thermite/thermate because I hired Jim Millete to look for it and he couldn't find it." "

You did not finish that sentence.

...he couldn't find it using the same methodology as the Bentham Paper scientists, because his company does not own a DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimeter) and he is unfamiliar with this equipment as a user.

He was originally presented to this forum as a scientist with a great track record, related-field experience, and a company capable of reproducing the methodology used by the Bentham Paper scientists.

"He did not do the critical test of raising the temperature to the ignition point of ~430^oC. He did not find a thermitic reaction because he did not look for one. SOS.

If he could heat the chip to 400^oC then he could heat it to 430^oC and prove or disprove a thermitic reaction. The fact that he could have and did not says it all. You did not get your money's worth. He did not prove anything."

"I will pass your quote on to Jim Millette right now, Chris7. And MM, I have asked Millette repeatedly about the DSC test and he says it would only show the ignition temperature of a paint chip; it's not the test of choice to give evidence for thermitic material."

That shows his ignorance and disinterest. Has he really read the Bentham Report?

The DSC does reveal ignition temperatures but to dismiss it at that is very wrong.

It also provides an exothermic energy reading to go with the ignition temperature.

If paint is certain, known paint chip formulations should produce comparable results to those obtained by Dr. Harrit et al.

It would seem to be a very easy confirmation of the paint theory.

The Bentham scientists addressed the question of paint as well.

To not question Millette's objectivity, is this journalistic objectivity?

Are you and Dr. Millette saying there is nothing unique in the test results obtainable from the DSC?

That DSC results like the finding of high purity molten iron only after the red chip ignited around 430C is not significant?

That the DSC's consistent ignition of red chips around 430C, is not significant?

That nothing comparable was obtained when they tested primer paint samples is not significant?

At least Millette's other testing dismissed the much touted, but weakly supported, Laclede primer paint hypothesis.

"Who was that guy who offered $300 towards a DSC test? I got the names of two labs who could do it from Millette, posted it, and never heard from him again.

Chris7 you are way too quick to blow off Millette. His was an excellent study, worth many more times than the $1000 I raised from people on both sides of the argument. "

A study using his company's existing equipment, samples and his free time.

A study to be presented at a conference early in 2012, that he appeared to be well into on his own dime.

For Dr. Millette, the $1,000 was just gravy.

And, since he couldn't do it for free.

Though the forum didn't know it, DSC testing was never on the table.

Dr. Millette also would have had to pay the $300+ cost of DSC testing, and risked the finding of controversial matching results supplied by another lab, his competition.

"You say I'm in an exho chamber, that I ignore evidence etc., yet I'm the ONLY one to make a serious effort to replicate the Bentham paper, ..."

Maybe you might explain how your involvement in the Dr. Millette Paper represented a serious attempt on your part to oversee "a replication of the Bentham paper"?

I think you asked for a horse and they sold you a chicken.

"...asking NIST question after question until now I am finally too embarrased to keep asking what I consider dumb questions, etc. I don't appreciate my efforts being hand-waved by you."

Unfortunately, the only thing "dumb", is the response you are likely to receive from anyone with related technical expertise, unless they already disagree with the Official Story.

Do you honestly think anyone from the NIST is going to give you useful hardcopy that would jeopardize their relationships?

MM

 

[ergo]

At least Millette's other testing dismissed the much touted, but weakly supported, Laclede primer paint hypothesis.

You mean Tnemec? Or did I miss something?

 

[DGM]

...he couldn't find it using the same methodology as the Bentham Paper scientists,

MM

Funny thing is, the Bentham "scientists" couldn't also.

 

[Sunstealer]

He did not do the critical test of raising the temperature to the ignition point of ~430^oC. He did not find a thermitic reaction because he did not look for one. SOS.

If he could heat the chip to 400^oC then he could heat it to 430^oC and prove or disprove a thermitic reaction. The fact that he could have and did not says it all. You did not get your money's worth. He did not prove anything.

You don't understand why he heated the chip to 400°C rather than 430°C or 10,000°C.

There is a very, very simple and easy to understandable reason why 400°C was used in the low temperature ashing process which is designed to burn off the organic component and leave behind the remaining particulate for TEM-SAED analysis.

As we have seen if the sample is heated to 430°C then a reaction of some sort occurs and the particles that are required to be analysed are destroyed. So the absolute last thing you want to do is heat them to that temperature if your intent is to analyse the particles in the paint.

Once the particles were shown to be rhombohedral Fe2O3 and kaolin plates absolutely identical to those found in the Harrit et al paper, then there is absolutely no need to do any addition testing (which only adds to cost and time). The material has been identified: case closed.

There is no point in looking for a thermitic reaction if the materials you have characterised and identified are not thermite!

Only deluded truthers who don't understand why DSC is worthless harp on about the test not being performed.

How the hell do you manage to prove or disprove a thermitic reaction in a DSC? Give a defined method in your own words. You won't but we already know that you can't use your own words.

Lastly Millette is continuing with writing up the paper for review and the inconsequential microsphere nonsense will be addressed in that.

Where is the FTIR data that Harrit has but didn't include in the paper? Perhaps you should direct your ire at your heroes for not releasing their data even after a request. What are they hiding?

 

[GlennB]

How the hell do you manage to prove or disprove a thermitic reaction in a DSC?

This. You can't.

The point that some Truthers here cling to is that the Benthamites did such a test, concluded (totally erroneously) that this was some kind of evidence of thermitic behaviour and that, therefore, any subsequent tests on the chips must include the DSC test.

 

[pgimeno]

Who was that guy who offered $300 towards a DSC test? I got the names of two labs who could do it from Millette, posted it, and never heard from him again.

That would be Senenmut.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=28544
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8081884#post8081884

 

[Christopher7]

"I say no thermite/thermate because I hired Jim Millete to look for it and he couldn't find it."
"He did not do the critical test of raising the temperature to the ignition point of ~430oC. He did not find a thermitic reaction because he did not look for one. SOS."

"If he could heat the chip to 400oC then he could heat it to 430oC and prove or disprove a thermitic reaction. The fact that he could have and did not says it all. You did not get your money's worth. He did not prove anything."

I will pass your quote on to Jim Millette right now, Chris7. And MM, I have asked Millette repeatedly about the DSC test and he says it would only show the ignition temperature of a paint chip; it's not the test of choice to give evidence for thermitic material.

That's assuming the outcome rather than doing the test. The tell is the creation of iron spheres when the chip ignites at 430^oC. That proves a thermitic reaction.

Who was that guy who offered $300 towards a DSC test? I got the names of two labs who could do it from Millette, posted it, and never heard from him again.

I don't know.

Chris7 you are way too quick to blow off Millette. His was an excellent study, worth many more times than the $1000

He did not get the job done. He didn't find aluminum without the silicone because he used a different method. He was supposed to replicate the Harrit et al tests and see whether or not he got the same results. He did not do this in two critical instances.

I raised from people on both sides of the argument. You say I'm in an echo chamber

Indeed and in spades.

that I ignore evidence

I must be honest with you. That really ticks me off.

I'm the ONLY one to make a serious effort to replicate the Bentham paper, asking NIST question after question until now I am finally too embarrased to keep asking what I consider dumb questions, etc. I don't appreciate my efforts being hand-waved by you.

I applaud your efforts but Millette did not replicate the Harrit et al tests and did not resolve the issue.

Your questions to NIST didn't really resolve anything either.

At issue:
1) Are the red/gray chips nano-thermite as Harrit et al found?

Until someone publishes a peer reviewed rebuttal, the analysis by Harrit et al stands as a valid analysis. That is the way science works, JREF objections notwithstanding.

2) WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet.

This has been confirmed by the scientific method.
David Chandler analyzed a video of the collapse, using technology he uses in his profession, a teacher of physics and math, and the result was that WTC 7 fell at FFA [within 1%] for about 2.5 seconds. He presented this finding to NIST at a public hearing.

NIST then did their own analysis using a different point on the roofline and different software, and got a more precise measurement of 2.25 seconds and within one tenth of 1% of FFA. That is considered to be as close as can be measured from a video and they said the entire upper part of WTC 7 descended at FFA.

That is the scientific method. Denying that WTC 7 fell at FFA is denying science.