Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
That's assuming the outcome rather than doing the test. The tell is the creation of iron spheres when the chip ignites at 430oC. That proves a thermitic reaction.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming the only way to detect thermite is to react it and look for it's by products? Can you show that only a thermite reaction results in "iron spheres"?
 
DGM said:
Are you claiming the only way to detect thermite is to react it and look for it's by products? Can you show that only a thermite reaction results in "iron spheres"?
Click to expand...

The purity of the created iron microspheres is the factor which points to a temperature which was high enough to melt iron.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
The purity of the created iron microspheres is the factor which points to a temperature which was high enough to melt iron.

MM
Click to expand...

"iron rich" =/= pure iron. You guys can keep peddling this nonsense as such, but facts don't change because you don't like them.
 
Sunstealer said:
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?
Click to expand...

FTIR can't determine elemental aluminum so the data is likely irrelevant.
 
Re-Re-Rebuttals 45-86

Hi again gang,

I've just finished boiling down and submitting our re-re-rebuttals of points 1-44 on the chrismohr911.com site being put together for AE911Truth. They've re-rebutted many of my 238 YouTube rebuttals of Gage's Blueprint for Truth video there.

Now I'd like to ask if we can work on rebuttals for #45-86. People can also give me links for other YouTube videos from the likes of Dave Thomas and Alienentity etc. for ANY of the AE9/11 rebuttals (by number so I know where to link them up).

Thanks in advance again for all your help,
Chris Mohr
 
chrismohr said:
Hi again gang,

I've just finished boiling down and submitting our re-re-rebuttals of points 1-44 on the chrismohr911.com site being put together for AE911Truth. They've re-rebutted many of my 238 YouTube rebuttals of Gage's Blueprint for Truth video there.

Now I'd like to ask if we can work on rebuttals for #45-86. People can also give me links for other YouTube videos from the likes of Dave Thomas and Alienentity etc. for ANY of the AE9/11 rebuttals (by number so I know where to link them up).

Thanks in advance again for all your help,
Chris Mohr
Click to expand...
#9 "Structural Damage Throughout Building"
Source please?


ETA: Would you respond to this please?

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.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What....exactly.......do you think the "various forms of thermite" can do?

Christopher7 said:
BS You could not possibly know the state of the art because the information is classified.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, nano-banano thermite, etc etc etc is certainly NOT classified.

If you believe it is classified then tell me this...


#1. What is it's classification level?

#2. Why is it classified at that level?
 
C7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
newton3376 said:
What....exactly.......do you think the "various forms of thermite" can do?
Click to expand...
Jon Cole demonstrated that thermate can do pressure volume work, i.e. cut thru steel beams and cut the bolts that hold the column sections together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

We only know in general that nano-thermite can be made explosive by adding organic material such as found in the red/gray chips.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

C7 said:
BS You could not possibly know the state of the art because the information is classified.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Thermite, thermate, nano thermite, nano-banano thermite, etc etc etc is certainly NOT classified.

If you believe it is classified then tell me this...

#1. What is it's classification level?

#2. Why is it classified at that level?
Click to expand...
You are playing with semantics again.

The specific applications [how it could be used in a demolition] are classified.

"However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research."
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f

Chris Mohr has no business saying that thermite/thermate/nano-thermite cannot be used in a CD. He ignores the Jon Cole devices and he does not know what the military had developed.

How they were used is another question that could be argued ad nauseam but the claim that some form of thermite could not be used as a far less noisy way than C4 to dismember steel framed buildings is utterly false.
 
Christopher7 said:
He did not get the job done. He didn't find aluminum without the silicone[sic] because he used a different method.
Click to expand...
Please state the two methods used, how they differ and why one would find free aluminium and the other not.

Either do this or retract the statement.

Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns is talking bollocks. Millette uses far better methods for determining whether Al is bonded or not.
 
ergo said:
FTIR can't determine elemental aluminum so the data is likely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You haven't got the first clue what you are talking about.

FTIR analysis clearly show that Kaolin and Epoxy ARE present. Therefore no free aluminium is present because all the Al is in the kaolin.

Secondly TEM-SAED (which analyses the crystal structure lattice spacing) will, without a shadow of a doubt, show if free Al is present in the platelets.

Millette's data clearly shows, using TEM-SAED, that the Al is bound to Si in the form of kaolin. It does NOT show free Al.

Stop pontificating on a subject you know nothing about.
 
chrismohr said:
Let's ask someone who was there. Could someone who was there that day, perhaps a First Responder Firefighter, and saw it with his own eyes, maybe weigh in on this deeply challenging question. Were there any infernos that day, or would you say the fires were pretty easy to manage until suddenly the buildings collapsed 1,2,3 for no obvious reason? Was Gage right when he said the Twin Towers' fires were almost extinguished and Building 7 was just a few small pockets of fires before their collapses? Or are Richard Gage and our friend Clayton perhaps a wee bit inaccurate in the characterization of the fires that day? Was it at least hot enough to cook many Jesuses on corndogs?

Clayton, I have had some great much-needed belly laughs this evening. Thank you!
Click to expand...

The strange fire at the WTC on 9/11 wasn't as bad as an earlier fire in the same building.
 
Sunstealer said:
Millette uses far better methods for determining whether Al is bonded or not.
Click to expand...
Right.

Millette's method is better at determining whether Al is bonded or not, but it didn't.

And Harrit's method for determining whether Al is bonded or not is not as good as Millette's, but it did.

Do you see the disconnect here?


BTW: I did chuckle at the quality sarcasm:
Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns :D
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Right.

Marllete's method is better at determining whether Al is bonded or not, but it didn't.

And Harrit's method for determining whether Al is bonded or not is not as good as Marllete's, but it did.

Do you see the disconnect here?
Click to expand...

I certainly do, but the fact that you don't is astounding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom