Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
chrismohr said:
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.
Click to expand...
You did not say "could not" specifically but you went on about thermite burning much too slowly for CD. "Therefore it could not have been used" is your inference.

You don't know all the ways thermite can be used. To mention ways it could not be used and conclude from that that is was not used is ignoring your ignorance of how thermite could be used.

BTW: You were NOT responding the Mr. Gage. This came right after the leverage sillyness.

The argument that there might be supersecret military classified nanoblasticthermite is of course irrefutable on its face.
Click to expand...
The military has been working on nano-thermite as an explosive for a long time and they have no doubt made advances. But DEW's, not so much. Comparing the two demonstrates your ignorance of both and the CIA in invisibility cloaks is just sarcasm.

The evidence does not support any of it
Click to expand...
You deny the evidence of FFA and say there is no evidence.

but you could still posit a supersecret product whose secret traits include explosive energy with supersonic explosive sounds
Click to expand...
Nano-thermite need not expand at the speed of sound because the molten iron, rather than high velocity gasses, does most of the cutting.

blinding lights in the ultraviolet range
Click to expand...
Your ability to ignore facts that undo your reasons for not believing is unlimited.

The floors that were removed were covered by a smoke screen.

no chemical trace of its existence left behind
Click to expand...
Hello?
Sample #1, the red/gray chips and microspheres with the same chemical signature as the ones produced by the red/gray chips are all evidence of some form of thermite. You deny these too and claim there is no evidence of thermite.

What have you proven? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, as Carl Sagan said, and after ten years you are reduced to the minutiae.
Click to expand...
FFA is not minutiae. It proves that all the supporting structure was removed. That's why you try to say it wasn't FFA.

The exterior columns in the NIST model are bending and providing significant resistance well into the FFA but you will not even respond the that fact.

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out. NIST said so but you deny that too.

NIST lied about the the width of the seat and the existence of the flange stiffeners to get their walk-off theory to work but that does not register in your mind as being fraud.

This is the JREF way.
 
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.

I don't know.

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.


Indeed and in spades.

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

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.
Click to expand...
Hi everyone,

I quoted some of Chris7's accusations directly to Jim Millette. The new chant, "he didn't do DSC so his work is useless" elicited this response from him:

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result – not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim
 
chrismohr said:
The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim
Click to expand...

I think they already did (FTIR data). Pay no attention "truthers" to the data they refuse to release.

:rolleyes:
 
WTC Dust said:
The strange fire at the WTC on 9/11 wasn't as bad as an earlier fire in the same building.
Click to expand...

So, 10,000 gallons of Jet fuel and instant fires over 5+ floors, is less severe than an electrical fire that is contained to a chaseway.........

Right.......:rolleyes:
bs.gif
 
Originally Posted by WTC Dust
The strange fire at the WTC on 9/11 wasn't as bad as an earlier fire in the same building.
Click to expand...

WHAT?!?!?


Reality. That far away magical place that some people are afraid to enter.

Come on in! The water's nice, and the dust is harmless.
 
The military has been working on nano-thermite as an explosive for a long time and they have no doubt made advances.
Click to expand...

As of when? It's been 10 years and we've still not seen any practical application of what you suggest. Are they hiding it until we're ALL dead?


(OR... are you inventing things again?)
 
chrismohr said:
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).
Click to expand...
I don't watch many videos actually, so I can't point you to many.

Here's again my own take, this time corresponding to video 2 only. As before, anyone is invited to add, correct, or whatever. Ozeco did a good job the last time.

# | Chris Mohr's argument | Response by AE911Truth | P.Gimeno's take
45 | Total Dismemberment of Steel Structures DID NOT HAPPEN see slide | Nobody said "Total" dismemberment, but there certainly was a lot. | In http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=43&hires=1 Gage's slide clearly indicates "Total Dismemberment", see point 5. Dismemberment of steel structures happens in any collapse, including the partial collapse of the steel structure visible here: http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/slide0008_image013.jpg The perimeter columns of the towers were panels that tended to break at the unions, no mystery there either.
46 | Minimal Damage to Adjacent Structures????? not true! Major damage picture | |
47 | Dust Clouds Common to Controlled Demolition and Natural Collapse | | To further support this point, here are a few videos of collapses by fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-6Sp7mKlQ - all these examples feature: Sudden Onset of Destruction (point 1), Straight-down, symmetrical collapse onto the footprint (2), Minimal Damage to Adjacent Structures (6), Enormous clouds of pulverized concrete (8).
48 | By Definition Controlled Demolition Impossible With Variables Like Plane Crashes and Fires | Nothing in the future can be completely controlled, due to unknown variables. But the demolition was controlled as much as possible. It seems that too many explosives were used, making it too obvious. | Given the absence of sound of explosives during the collapse, the claim of too many explosives is baseless. Collapses are expected to damage adjacent buildings as the collapses of the towers did, destroying the whole complex.
49 | Tom Sullivan: Very Hard to Make It Perfect Under Best of Circumstances | Tom Sullivan is an experienced demolition expert, and an active member of AE911Truth. He believes the WTCs came down by CD. The Control of the Demolition did not have to be "perfect" to be effective. | Again, collapses are expected to not be perfect at all, so any claim of imperfection favors the collapse hypothesis.
50 | Explosive Sounds In Controlled Demo | Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM For sounds of explosions this should be used: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/574-faq-7.html | In http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_WTC7_explosion_video the location and time of the boom heard in the first part of the video is determined. It is from about 10:20 in the morning, probably between the collapse of WTC2 and the collapse of WTC1, or it could even be the collapse of WTC1 itself breaking the underlevels and shaking the ground. The firefighters are in Murray street looking towards West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7. No other nearly similar explosion to that expectable in a CD was heard, much less when either of the towers was about to collapse or collapsing.
51 | Squibs Appear in Logical Patterns | Squibs are covered in this article. Logical pattern suggests pre-planning. http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html Points 51 and 52 are similar | I don't agree on the speed calculations cited from the article, and there is an obvious fact that can be observed on the ejections: they increase their volume and speed over time. That can't be the effect of an explosion, whose expansion stops basically immediately, and the ejections from explosions don't increase in intensity. I can't explain how the dust reaches that point so quickly, though. Regarding the "video of violent ejections" from one window before the collapse, after watching the video I suggest that that precise video shows a backdraft happening, and the ejected material may be a curtain or similar.
52 | Squibs Appear Before Collapse | Squibs are covered in this article, showing they should not be visible. http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/585-faq-8-squibs.html Points 51 and 52 are similar | See #51.
53 | If lateral ejections from controlled demolition, then ½ mile away you would hear deafening 140 db sounds | For sounds of explosions this should be used: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/574-faq-7.html Many people and broadcasters commented on the explosive sounds. See and listen for yourself at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM | See #50. The video does not show "many people". There were lots of media on the WTC and nearby streets before the collapse of WTC2 and that video shows about all the existing material regarding sounds of explosions. Which by the way are normal during fires; they were also reported during the Windsor building fire in Madrid.
54 | All six companies in the world that can bring down tall buildings dismiss this theory. They can't tear down the world's tallest buildings in secret in an entirely new way while a raging fire is going on, tossing in two crashing 767s to randomize structural damage and make the feat even more virtuosic. | Demolition companies are in the business of making money. They do not want to "demolish" their relationship with the world's richest customer - the US Government - by making statements that could implicate high ranking officials in murder, or themselves. If the US technicians can go to the Moon six times, and create the Atom Bomb in secret (not even Vice President Truman knew), we cannot say what can be done in secret. Many tests could have been done in top secret locations. | I'd better not answer this, sorry. That kind of arguments just make me facepalm.
 
Hi gang,
You can see all our re-re-rebuttals so far (and thanks for everyone's help!) for the first 44 or so points at chrismohr911.com. I had to hit CTL-F5 to do a refresh to see it. They've nicely organized it so my original Gage rebuttals are numbered and at the top of each section in the left column. Their re-rebuttals are on the right. Our re-re-rebuttals are on the left column, bottom part of each number, divided out by a line. Looks clear to me. Eventually I want to add a lot more relevant video/text links from alienentity, screw loose change bloggers, dave thomas, etc. If I made glaring errors let me know.
 
Chris, it seems you were writing as I did, hope you didn't miss my post right above yours.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi gang,
You can see all our re-re-rebuttals so far (and thanks for everyone's help!) for the first 44 or so points at chrismohr911.com. I had to hit CTL-F5 to do a refresh to see it. They've nicely organized it so my original Gage rebuttals are numbered and at the top of each section in the left column. Their re-rebuttals are on the right. Our re-re-rebuttals are on the left column, bottom part of each number, divided out by a line. Looks clear to me.
Click to expand...
To me it isn't very clear. I suggest this format instead:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/temp/chrismohr911.html

That is, using row spans in the first column cells.
 
DGM said:
I think they already did (FTIR data). Pay no attention "truthers" to the data they refuse to release.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's in the paper, page 26:
Harrit e al said:
The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Also, both Harrit and Jones have said in interviews later in 2009 that Jeff Farrer had already done TEM analysis, identified Fe2O3 with it, but apparently had no conclusions on the aluminium-content (i.e. the Kaolin, if he happened to look at "type a-d" chips.


Contrary to what they wrote in the paper, the FTIR data was never published, neither was the TEM data.

Frank Legge, one of the co-authors, wrote recently (about early march, I think) on 911Blogger that he wanted to ask Jones about both data sets. No reply yet.

AE911Twoof wrote in their March-newsletter that they would have a critique of Millette's preliminary report in the April newsletter. But there wasn't any such critique.



Christopher7, I believe you have personal contacts to some of the authors of Harrit e.al.
Would you be so kind as to get a comment from them on
  • why the FTIR data that they said they already HAD done was never published
  • why the TEM data was never published
  • why the critique of Millette has not been included in the newsletter
  • and if they would at least dump some raw data of the FTIR and TEM analysis somewhere. Perhaps Ryan and Legge could accomodate it in their Journal of 911 Studies?
Thanks. That would really help.
 
chrismohr said:
If I made glaring errors let me know.
Click to expand...
In question 15, the reply corresponds to question 16 and is repeated there. Furthermore, the youtube link is not clickable.

Question 22 has no reply, probably because 22, 27 and 28 are similar and there's a reply at 27, but I'm just noting it in case it's an oversight.

In question 27, the youtube link is not clickable.

Question 25, one of the images does not work, probably because it was copied from the text of an URL instead of the URL itself, and has embedded ellipsis.

A minor point, in question 6 "The fireball was immense, started in many places at the same time" probably means "started fires in many places..."
 
LSSBB said:
No, freefall time could also mean that the resistive force of the structure below is counterbalanced by other forces pulling the structure down.
Click to expand...
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
 
Christopher7 said:
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
Click to expand...
911 truth does that all the time; pulls itself down faster than free-fall. What was the date your work is being published in a respected structural engineering journal? Presentation date at a conference?

911 truth has nothing to publish that would pass for reality. How does the penthouse falling through WTC 7 work? Where did it go 8 seconds before the facade of WTC 7 fell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom