Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Sunstealer]

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?


BTW: I did chuckle at the quality sarcasm:
Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns

This has been explained to truthers a thousand times but I'll do it just one more time to see if it sinks in.


In the Harrit et al paper there are 5 samples.

Samples a,b,c and d are all the same. They are the same material. These 4 samples show that kaolin is present and the EDX mapping of various elements show that Al is bonded to Si.

The 5th sample is the one that was soaked in MEK. This 5th sample is not the same as samples a,b,c and d as shown by EDX. (it's not contamination otherwise it would be seen using the SEM. There was no EDX mapping of that sample and there was no SEM photo's of the particles present in the sample documented in the paper.

a= apple.
b=apple.
c=apple.
d=apple.

MEK soaked chip = orange.

They are all fruits but they are not all the same fruit.

Are you with me?

Now when they soaked that 5th chip in MEK the particles were separated and they appeared to find that free aluminum was present. Tnemec red primer paint contains aluminates and this is what Harrit et al show. But remember that sample is not the same as a,b,c and d. Therefore what ever is found in that sample CANNOT be read across to samples a,b,c and d.

So what is the 5th sample? The 5th sample, the one soaked in MEK is Tnemec red primer paint which I've shown to be true using Jones's own data from EDX of tnemec red primer paint. The spectra match. See sig for that post.

Harrit et al had more than one type of sample but assumed they were all the same.

 

[chrismohr]

#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.

As for #9, I am pulling back from this. NIST reported phenomena such as doorjams being stuck and other evidence of strains and slight distortion on the Towers' structures well below the crash site, but I realize now they are not relevant to the collapse itself. Had the structure been at 100% strength or 90% strength is an academic question because the difference would have not saved the building from collapse anyway.

The many posts and charts by Tom TFK and others are all I have to say about FFA. I disagree with NIST and David Chandler and think that femr and others have made more accurate measurements and shown a variable collapse rate slightly above and below freefall for those 2.25 seconds. You know I accept the more precise measurements and the fact that they show slight variations around freefall rates, not pure freefall. You and I and others have discussed this to death.

 

[chrismohr]

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

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.

Chris7, I said that thermites were not used, not that they couldn't be used. I even acknowledge in my videos a link you gave me long ago about the possibility of using nanothermites as a kind of explosive.

The argument that there might be supersecret military classified nanoblasticthermite is of course irrefutable on its face. The same can be said for Judy Woods' arguments or a bunch of CIA people with invisibility cloaks. The evidence does not support any of it but you could still posit a supersecret product whose secret traits include explosive energy with supersonic explosive sounds, blinding lights in the ultraviolet range, no chemical trace of its existence left behind, destroying itself like a tape in Mission Impossible. OK you win I can't reply to such a claim. What have you proven? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, as Carl Sagan said, and after ten years you are reduced to the minutiae.

 

[Christopher7]

when they soaked that 5th chip in MEK the particles were separated and they appeared to find that free aluminum was present.

Appeared to?

The 5th sample, the one soaked in MEK is Tnemec red primer paint

No. I read the paper, they ruled out primer. Until properly challenged in a peer reviewed journal it stands as valid science. Your objections notwithstanding. And your opinion of the journal is irrelevant.

Harrit and Jones have published over 50 times in journals. They have credibility and you don't. You have no standing to say they are wrong. If you have something to refute them, write it up and publish it as critics demanded Jones do.

It should also be noted that BYU considered it valid science. They allowed the director of their microscopy department to list his affiliation with BYU on the title page.

 

[GlennB]

Until properly challenged in a peer reviewed journal it stands as valid science.

So Bentham would do for the challenge then?

 

[Christopher7]

The many posts and charts by Tom TFK and others are all I have to say about FFA. I disagree with NIST and David Chandler and think that femr and others have made more accurate measurements and shown a variable collapse rate slightly above and below freefall for those 2.25 seconds. You know I accept the more precise measurements and the fact that they show slight variations around freefall rates, not pure freefall. You and I and others have discussed this to death.

You are still tap dancing around FFA. Now it's "not pure free fall".

So what? It was not less than FFA. Even if femr and tfk's silliness were true, the average over 2.25 seconds was free fall and that can only happen if all the supporting structure is removed.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]

 

[beachnut]

...
It should also be noted that BYU considered it valid science. They allowed the director of their microscopy department to list his affiliation with BYU on the title page.

BYU does not support or validate the failed paper of Jones. Feel free to get BYU to explain how they support nonsense. What a bunch of hogwash. When will we see the email, letter, etc.?

 

[carlitos]

It should also be noted that BYU consider "Jesus Christ Walked Around in North America" to be valid science.

 

[pgimeno]

WTC 7 fell at FFA had an average acceleration similar to that of FF for about 100 feet.

This has been confirmed by the scientific method.

FTFY. Don't misrepresent the nature of the analysis.

So what? It was not less than FFA. Even if femr and tfk's silliness were true, the average over 2.25 seconds was free fall and that can only happen if all the supporting structure is removed.

Wrong. It can also happen if the overload due to the core pulling down the façade makes the façade give way. Which is what I believe happened.

 

[pgimeno]

[sarcasm]

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.

No, no. You don't understand. Christopher7 is the only one with right to tell others what to retract.

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.

Seriously?

TEM can reveal if free AL is in the samples?

Are we talking about the same TEM that the Bentham team did and have been requested to publish but did not????

Shocked.
[/sarcasm]

 

[thedopefishlives]

You are still tap dancing around FFA. Now it's "not pure free fall".

So what? It was not less than FFA. Even if femr and tfk's silliness were true, the average over 2.25 seconds was free fall and that can only happen if all the supporting structure is removed.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]

You STILL keep refusing to address the difference between "average" and "instantaneous". I asked you a week ago if you'd figured out these concepts yet.

 

[pgimeno]

The many posts and charts by Tom TFK and others are all I have to say about FFA. I disagree with NIST and David Chandler and think that femr and others have made more accurate measurements and shown a variable collapse rate slightly above and below freefall for those 2.25 seconds.

Just please don't take NIST's analysis as something that it isn't. It's a rough estimation to determine the phases, not a precise one. The claim by NIST is that the average acceleration is that of free fall for some seconds, not that the acceleration was constant during that period. Indeed they show two different apparently contradicting formulas, but the contradiction is resolved by realizing that they're not analyzing the exact behavior but doing rough estimates. Femr2's data also shows FFA on average for some seconds.

 

[tsig]

You are still tap dancing around FFA. Now it's "not pure free fall".

So what? It was not less than FFA. Even if femr and tfk's silliness were true, the average over 2.25 seconds was free fall and that can only happen if all the supporting structure is removed.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]

Once a column buckles it ceases to be a structural component.

 

[Miragememories]

"It should also be noted that BYU consider "Jesus Christ Walked Around in North America" to be valid science."

Your point?...aside from a lame attempt to undermine BYU's reputation in science academics thru religious mockery?

Unless you can show where BYU impose religion on the objectivity of their various science and technology departments, I think it is irrelevant what their thoughts are on where Jesus Christ dipped his heels.

Since you appear concerned about the effects of religious fantasy, are you willing to also mock the credibility of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, William Thomson Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilel, Johannes Kepler, and Nicholas Copernicus?

For the record, I am an atheist.

MM

 

[chrismohr]

Just please don't take NIST's analysis as something that it isn't. It's a rough estimation to determine the phases, not a precise one. The claim by NIST is that the average acceleration is that of free fall for some seconds, not that the acceleration was constant during that period. Indeed they show two different apparently contradicting formulas, but the contradiction is resolved by realizing that they're not analyzing the exact behavior but doing rough estimates. Femr2's data also shows FFA on average for some seconds.

I do understand this. Not every Chris on this thread does.

 

[newton3376]

You are playing with semantics again.

Semantics are all that truthers have. You do not have any physical evidence, any engineering arguments, or any mathematical proofs for anything.....all you guys have are semantics. Come up with an actual argument or some actual evidence and then we can discuss it...until then we are left with semantics.

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

At what level of classification Chris?

There are several levels of classifications Chris...which level is this information classified at?

BTW....there would be no reason to classify demolition applications ANYWAY so your entire point is worthless.

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.

LOL not if it is hurling steel beams Chris.....if it is acting as an explosive capable of destroying the structural steel we would be able to hear it.

If it was acting as an incendiary and melting the structural steel there would be the remnants of molten material all over ground zero with obvious signs of thermite.

What you don't seem to understand is that if what you think happened actually happened in real life then there would be no debate because it would be obvious.

You are still living in pretendland I see....

 

[carlitos]

Just in case anyone didn't catch my reference, it was to lunatic / truth proponent / BYU professor Steven Jones, who wrote Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America, a paper which was originally hosted on his faculty page here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

I have no interest in further engaging MM's trolling, but it might not be a coincidence that the leading lights of the truth movement also believe in something as ridiculous as Mormonism. Both religions were started by charlatans to fleece the gullible and boost their self-importance.

 

[LSSBB]

You are still tap dancing around FFA. Now it's "not pure free fall".

So what? It was not less than FFA. Even if femr and tfk's silliness were true, the average over 2.25 seconds was free fall and that can only happen if all the supporting structure is removed.

[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"[/FONT]

No, freefall time could also mean that the resistive force of the structure below is counterbalanced by other forces pulling the structure down.

 

[Sunstealer]

Appeared to?

No. I read the paper, they ruled out primer. Until properly challenged in a peer reviewed journal it stands as valid science. Your objections notwithstanding. And your opinion of the journal is irrelevant.

Harrit and Jones have published over 50 times in journals. They have credibility and you don't. You have no standing to say they are wrong. If you have something to refute them, write it up and publish it as critics demanded Jones do.

It should also be noted that BYU considered it valid science. They allowed the director of their microscopy department to list his affiliation with BYU on the title page.

I knew it would be pointless.

The paper was never peer reviewed. It was never published in a reputable journal. Why would you expect someone to pay good money to publish in Bentham or elsewhere refuting a silly paper?

This is your problem. The data clearly shows that the conclusions the Bentham paper reaches are wrong. However, because you and every other truther doesn't have the knowledge or experience to understand this it becomes your bible, the infallible word of Jones and Harrit. I've shown you the data and explained why the conclusion is wrong, but you won't take me on with regard to the discussion of the data even though this stuff is in my professional field. You merely spout nonsense about publishing in peer review. It's a childish comeback and a blatant refusal because you know that you as well as Harrit et al don't have a leg to stand on.

Harrit et al is littered with poor methodology, incorrect interpretation of data and fanciful speculation. Only the gullible are fooled.

 

[newton3376]

No. I read the paper, they ruled out primer.

OMG....Chris read the paper! With his level of scientific and engineering education and experience we better be wary...

Until properly challenged in a peer reviewed journal it stands as valid science. Your objections notwithstanding. And your opinion of the journal is irrelevant.

#1. It does not now, nor has it ever, stand as "valid science". It is junk science in a pretend journal.

#2. The communities opinion of the journal is precisely because it allows pseudo-scientific claptrap like this to be published. You have it backwards Chris....the journal doesn't make the paper look bad...the PAPER makes the JOURNAL look bad.

Harrit and Jones have published over 50 times in journals.

Funny how you think this is some great accomplishment.....

They have credibility and you don't.

Not in the engineering and scientific circles they don't. Maybe they have credibility among non scientist and non engineer truthers living in moms basement watching youtube videos all day.....

But that is only credibility in fantasyland.

It should also be noted that BYU considered it valid science. They allowed the director of their microscopy department to list his affiliation with BYU on the title page.

It should also be noted that BYU thought so highly of Jones and his arguments that Jones was forced into early retirement because of it...

Sure sounds like BYU really supported Jones there doesn't it Chris?

You keep fighting the good fight on the internet Chris.....Im sure that "any day now" you are going to "break through" and wake up the sheeple.....