Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Christopher7]

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

Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430^oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430^oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns

 

[newton3376]

Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430^oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430^oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns

This post is a beautiful example of several of the main errors that truthers make...

1. Assuming their non expert opinion is as valuable as an experts.

2. Assuming they understand the basics of something technical.

3. Asking questions that show a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

4. Oversimplifying and overgeneralizing things.

5. Making faulty conclusions based off of faulty reasoning.

6. Inability to research something even when the answers are a forum search away.

7. Fundamental errors in analytical thinking, logic, basic reasoning, reading comprehension, mathematics, engineering, and science.

I can go on but that is good enough for now.

I do not know how Jim will respond, but if I received something like this at work I would respond one of two ways.....

I would either ignore it
or
I would write a somewhat nasty letter back chastising the author for asking stupid questions while being clueless. Most Engineers/Scientists would just ignore it which it what I suspect Jim will do.

Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.

 

[Sunstealer]

This post is a beautiful example of several of the main errors that truthers make...

1. Assuming their non expert opinion is as valuable as an experts.

2. Assuming they understand the basics of something technical.

3. Asking questions that show a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

4. Oversimplifying and overgeneralizing things.

5. Making faulty conclusions based off of faulty reasoning.

6. Inability to research something even when the answers are a forum search away.

7. Fundamental errors in analytical thinking, logic, basic reasoning, reading comprehension, mathematics, engineering, and science.

I can go on but that is good enough for now.

I do not know how Jim will respond, but if I received something like this at work I would respond one of two ways.....

I would either ignore it
or
I would write a somewhat nasty letter back chastising the author for asking stupid questions while being clueless. Most Engineers/Scientists would just ignore it which it what I suspect Jim will do.

Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.

Thank you. You saved me writing it.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Is a perfect example of Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns spouting rubbish but thinking he has a point. Why would TEM-SAED analysis "get them to separate"??????? Chris obviously hasn't the first clue about the analysis or the chemistry of these materials. In fact he doesn't understand any chemistry at all?

As you say it's a waste of time.

 

[ozeco41]

...Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.

Thank you. You saved me writing it.
Is a perfect example of Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns spouting rubbish.....As you say it's a waste of time.

Thank you both.

I have over recent months and on several occasions "credited" C7 with being the most effective troll here. I have expressed concern that ChrisMohr has been prepared to extent C7 the common courtesy of treating him as if he was genuinely interested in discussion. My own judgement totally the opposite. No discussion involving C7 has made any significant progress. And preventing progress by causing the debate to circle is not a truther goal. Not the honest goal of a truthful truther interested in the pursuit of truth. (Is that alliteration or doesn't it qualify??? )

 

[Oystein]

On the previous page I wrote this to Christopher7, but he has not replied. I suspect he's got me on ignore, so could somebody please quote or copy this?

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

It's in the paper, page 26:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al:

"The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere."​

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.

 

[LSSBB]

A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.

If the inside goes first, what does it do to the outside?

 

[thedopefishlives]

A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.

And you still don't understand the difference between average and instantaneous acceleration.

 

[pgimeno]

A structure cannot pull itself down.

As a whole, that's right. But that's a straw man since that's not what happened. Parts of a system can pull other parts of a system down, as we saw in WTC7 and in the crane video I showed to you, which exhibited over-G acceleration. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg or are you denying that there's over-G in that video?

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin.

That's new to me.

 

[Animal]

As a whole, that's right. But that's a straw man since that's not what happened. Parts of a system can pull other parts of a system down, as we saw in WTC7 and in the crane video I showed to you, which exhibited over-G acceleration. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg or are you denying that there's over-G in that video?

Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

 

[pgimeno]

On the previous page I wrote this to Christopher7, but he has not replied. I suspect he's got me on ignore, so could somebody please quote or copy this?

I suspect he's plain ignoring you, not put you on ignore. But here it goes.

It's in the paper, page 26:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al:

"The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere."​

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.

Anyway, it's not his style to address questions to others. That courtesy that Chris Mohr has with the people in this forum does not apply to him. He's only on the demanding side, demanding rights without committing to obligations. Ironic the avatar he chose.

 

[pgimeno]

Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.

 

[Animal]

Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.

Or a combination of both.

 

[ozeco41]

Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.

Or a combination of both.

I always enjoy the elegant simplicity of that video clip demonstration but it is not a direct analogy to WTC7. You need to be able to translate the principles to the more complex situation of what probably happened at WTC7.

And C7 refuses to understand the "free body" physics - whether his refusal is based on genuine doesn't understand or is simply mendacity. It has been explained for him numerous times so he cannot honestly claim ignorance.

 

[Oystein]

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite ...

No.

While aluminium is the most usual reducing metal in many thermites, silicon is NOT. Conceivably, silicon dioxide (SiO₂) - not silicon - can be the metal oxide in a thermite mix with Al or Mg, but it has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: Because SiO₂ has a meltting point even higher than that of Fe₂O₃, and has an energy density that's only 70% that of normal Fe-Al-thermite, it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed, and won't self-sustain unless a booster is added in significant amounts, such as sulfur and more Al, or potassium chlorate, none of which was found to present anywhere in sufficient amounts, or at all. So it can be definitely ruled out that silicon played any role at all in that alleged "nano-thermite".
Chris7, you are engaging in wishful thinking, and you are propagating lies invented by the high priests of woo SE Jones.
Please refer to http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html#SiO2 if you don't believe me.

Secondly, Millette has shown unequivocally that there was NO ALUMINIUM in the chips that are equal to chips (a)-(d) in the Harrit paper - a conclusion that AE911Truth, Kevin Ryan, Debunking the Debunkers and Chris Sarns keep lying about, by totally ignoring this key conclusion.


Thirdly, the data in Harrit e.al., specifically Fig 10, shows clearly for all with eyes to see that Si and Al are bound to each other. There is not a mix of Al and Si, or Al and SiO2, there is clearly a chemical compound that contains BOTH Al and Si, and again, those with eyes to see, can clearly see that the distribution of Al and Si is the same as the distribution of those plates and stacks that look exactly like clay - which is a common word for aluminium silicate.


Why am I writing this? Chris7 has been informed of all these facts before, but refuses to let his brain be infected with facts.

 

[WTC Dust]

Frederick Henry-Couannier heated up the chips from samples given to him from the Jones group. He found zero evidence of thermite, after many attempts at provoking the thermite reaction. His conclusion was that the iron oxide chips were merely rust.

I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation, but at least we don't have to keep laboring under the false idea that they were unexploded thermite.

Finding rust chips and concluding thermite is like finding egg shells and concluding that a quiche Lorraine had just been baked.

Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430^oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430^oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns

 

[grandmastershek]

I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation

Really? You can't figure out how steel got rust on it?

 

[Clayton Moore]

A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.

Not surprising since this rebuttal stuff is a big charade.

 

[Mudcat]

Really? You can't figure out how steel got rust on it?

What is iron oxide, Alex?

Dusty, even stainless steal (which the structural steel most certainly was not) will get rust transferred onto it from contact contamination from metals less resistant to corrosion.

But in the case of the structural support steel used in the WTC would have been made of standard corrosion resistant steel. However we are talking about buildings that were several decades old so it's structural members would have definitely had some corrosion on it, especially if has not been replaced.

 

[Christopher7]

No.

While aluminium is the most usual reducing metal in many thermites, silicon is NOT. Conceivably, silicon dioxide (SiO₂) - not silicon - can be the metal oxide in a thermite mix with Al or Mg, but it has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: Because SiO₂ has a meltting point even higher than that of Fe₂O₃, and has an energy density that's only 70% that of normal Fe-Al-thermite, it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed, and won't self-sustain unless a booster is added in significant amounts, such as sulfur and more Al, or potassium chlorate, none of which was found to present anywhere in sufficient amounts, or at all. So it can be definitely ruled out that silicon played any role at all in that alleged "nano-thermite".

We have recently expanded this epoxide addition method to the synthesis of Fe2O3-SiO2 nanocomposites containing up to 60 wt% SiO2.
[FONT=&quot]https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf[/FONT]

Secondly, Millette has shown unequivocally that there was NO ALUMINIUM in the chips that are equal to chips (a)-(d)

The method he used did not separate the Al and the Si. That does not prove they are chemically bound, it only proves that method did not separate them. Harrit got them to separate proving they were not chemically bound.

in the Harrit paper - a conclusion that AE911Truth, Kevin Ryan, Debunking the Debunkers and Chris Sarns keep lying about, by totally ignoring this key conclusion.

Please return your accusation of lying to that dark recess from whence it came.

Thirdly, the data in Harrit e.al., specifically Fig 10, shows clearly for all with eyes to see that Si and Al are bound to each other. There is not a mix of Al and Si, or Al and SiO2, there is clearly a chemical compound that contains BOTH Al and Si, and again, those with eyes to see, can clearly see that the distribution of Al and Si is the same as the distribution of those plates and stacks that look exactly like clay - which is a common word for aluminium silicate.

I can see that they are similar but different.

Do you believe that clay ignites at 430^oC, produces an energy release spike and produces iron spheres?

 

[Christopher7]

A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.

If the inside goes first, what does it do to the outside?

I have said that the interior columns could momentarily pull the exterior columns down at faster than FFA but only for an instant. After that they would still be connected and falling together at FFA.

The "leverage" claptrap requires that the interior columns meet resistance. That would slow the fall, not increase it. There is no evidence or data that the "leverage" effect could have taken place in WTC 7. It's just straw grasping.

People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.