Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[cjnewson88]

the creation of iron-rich spheres is proof of a thermitic reaction

No, it is not.

 

[Christopher7]

No, it is not.

Do you know the difference between a red/gray chip and steel wool?

 

[cjnewson88]

Do you know the difference between a red/gray chip and steel wool?

Do you?

 

[Oystein]

Your excessive verbiage is to obfuscate the fact that you are the one with an "alternative perception of reality".

Silicone dioxide is used in nano-thermite as a buffering agent. You ignore the fact that they put silicone dioxide in nano-thermite for a reason.

"This paper will discuss the performance of energetic nanocomposites containing Fe2O3-SiO2 binary oxidizing phases. Thermite nanocomposites have been prepared by mixing aluminum nanoparticles with both commercial Fe2O3-SiO2 nanopowders and solgel prepared Fe2O3-SiO2 nanopowders. The effect of these two synthesis and mixing techniques on the burning rates of the resulting thermites will be discussed. Finally, thermites containing binary oxidizing phases that incorporate organic functionality for gas generation will be evaluated."

"We have successfully synthesized energetic nanocomposites using sol-gel methodology. Nanocomposites based on energetic thermites have been produced with both burn rate modifiers and gas generators through a silica-oxidizing phase.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

"Burn rate modifier" is a euphemism in this case for "extreme burn rate inhibitor".

You have seen how adding SiO₂ to the mix decreasesburn rate by factors of 200 to 1000, and then totally quenches the burning, right? How does that square with Jones's and Harrit's speculation that they used nanothermite because it is so explosive? Please, expain that in your own words.

Did they add silica to any thermite with an organic, gas-producing component?
What do you think would adding silica to such an agent do?

Man, you are clinging to a very fragile straw here.

 

[Oystein]

next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.

I thought they were. To you and your ilk, whenever anyone is wrong they are lying. That's because you see in others what your are yourself.

You thought they were the same? Fair enough, if slightly dumb.

That's why I wrote the following (I wonder why you didn't quote it in full context?):

When Farrer or Jones (not Harrit) "separated" Al in one sample, they didn't do so by chemical reaction. They tried a physical reaction (solution), but tried it on a completely different kind of material than that which we are talking about: The MEK-soaked chip in the Harrit paper is very different from chips (a)-(d): The latter clearly contain kaolin, the former quite apparently does not. The former clearly contains calcium, zinc, magnesium and sulfur, the latter clearly does not. The former very likely is Tnemec red, the latter quite likely is LaClede primer.

Please follow the links and acknowledge verbosely that you have now learned that
A) There were several different kinds of chips in Jones's samples
B) There were several different kinds of primer paints on WTC steels
so that next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.
​

You have NOT, as requested, acknowldged that you followed the links and are now aware that the chips are NOT the same. Why did you fail to follow the links and fail to acknowledge that you now know they are NOT the same? Here are the links again:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html

So would you now please

1. Follow this link: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html
2. Acknowledge verbosely that you now know the chips aren't all the same
3. Follow this link: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html
4. Acknowledge verbosely that you now know the MEK-soaked chip resembles the Tnemec formula
5. Follow this link: http://oystein-debate.blogspot.de/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html
6. Acknowledge verbosely that you now know chips (a)-(d) very much resemble the LaClede paint formulation

so that indeed the NEXT time you imply or claim you don't know that the chips are different, but resemble different primer paints, you will know that everybody can see how you are clearly and unequivocally lying.

If you choose NOT to give these acknowöedgements, I will take this as your stating your intent to lie in the future. If this interpretation of your refusal to acknowledge information is mistaken, please give an explanation for why you won't acknowledge these facts!

A chemist tells me that infrared spectroscopy is not decisive for identifying the presence of a compound in a mixture. I can only be decisive in excluding the presence of a compound.

Millette excluded aluminium. Please acknowledge!

Then go back to your chemist and ask him if

• XEDS is decisive for identifying the presence of a compound in a mixture
• DSC is decisive for identifying the presence of a compound in a mixture

And report back what you learn.

In light of what you learn, please give us an assessment of the validity of the Harrit-paper's conclusions about "active thermitic material found". Are these conclusions based on any competent, decisive methods - yes or no?


Next up, I want you to explain to us if infrared spectroscopy was the ONLY method that Millette used. List all the others that he used! Then go back to your chemist and ask him if perhaps all methods in conjunctions could be decisive? Hint: He also did TEM-SAED, TEM-EDS, SEM and SEM-EDS. The ashing of the probe also provides some hints.


When you have done all of this, I want you to discuss for us which paper you find superior in method and conclusions - Harrit e.al., or Millette's preliminary report!

And the extremely obvious fact is, they are different.

You are deluded.

Good to hear you admit that you are playing a stupid dishonest game.

Liar. I admitted no such thing. Stop the lies. They make you look disgusting.

Since when do organic materials produce iron spheres when ignited?

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3113/fig20.jpg

You are showing greyish, reflective spherules. They have been shown to consist of many compounds. Why do you falsely call them "iron spheres"?

BUT that is not the stupid dishonestx that I took you to task with.
You had written:

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

This has nothing to with your reply about organic materials. Why you had to move the goal post and run away from your stupid, dishonest insinuation is beyond me

I had made (implied) the following claims in response:

1. You KNOW very well that NOBODY thinks clay ignites anywhere!
2. You KNOW very well that the red layer is MOSTLY organic matrix.,
3. You SHOULD know very well that solid organic substances are prone to ignite at such temperatures.
4. And surely you KNOW very well that every SANE and HONEST person claims that it is the ORGANIC matrix that must be burning there, NOT the minerals.

And went on asking you:

1. So why do you ask such a CRAP question??
2. Are you consciously trying to give the Twoof Movement an even worse reputation than it already has by playing such dumb-dirty tricks?
3. Are you a disinfo shill?

I want you to now ACKNOWLEDGE that all four claims I made about you are TRUE. I then want you to ANSWER all three questions.

The only dodge I'll allow is an apology for trying a stupid and dishonest game on me. I won't let you get away with that crap!

 

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Oystein
next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.

I thought they were. To you and your ilk, whenever anyone is wrong they are lying. That's because you see in others what your are yourself........
None are so blind . . . . .

Oystein said "next time" because you should know better by now.
You've called NIST liars many times, not mistaken.
I've pointed out to you, your drawing of the 12th floor not burning next to the picture of the 12th floor window flames at the same time, and also that NIST simulation matches the window flame pictures two out of four and that the third matches at 9 min. delay. Who's lying "this time."
"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."- CI1mh4224rd

The image of ignited thermite from your quoted article shows, as is typical, the al-fe sparkles, but these sparkles are not seen in that burning of that chip by I forget his name. Another reason why that burning chip is not thermite.

 

[Christopher7]

You thought they were the same? Fair enough,

If you think I'm going to read all that tripe your crazy.

You are using the "talk it to death" denial tactic.

The Al and Si partially separated in the purple/green images I posted.

The red/gray chips produced iron spheres when heated to 430^oC.

You don't have to be a scientist to see that.

And all your verbose babbling cannot change those facts.

 

[Ivan Kminek]

If you think I'm going to read all that tripe your crazy.

The Al and Si partially separated in the purple/green images I posted.

And all your verbose babbling cannot change those facts.

C7: Sigh... The matter of separation of Al and Si in MEK chip has been thoroughly discussed (e.g.) in the paint thread. Just some repost of my contribution from there:

"Please try to accept the apparent fact that MEK chip was another material than chips (a) to (d) and let us consider this chip to be a particle of Tnemec paint.

According to specification, as for Al and Si stuffs, this paint contained 1) "diatomaceous silica", 2) "crystalline silica", 3) "talc", 4) "calcium silicates and aluminates" and 5) "amorphous silica".

These components/pigments have formulas (variable in some cases) :
1) (Mostly silica) SiO2
2) SiO2
3) H2Mg3(SiO3)4
4) Ca2Si04, xCaO·Al2O3
5) SiO2"

No wonder that particles of these various paint pigments were separated during soaking of Tnemec paint chip, leading to (better) separation of Si and Al rich areas! This is exactly what can be expected during this process in the case of this paint. Since chip substantially increased its volume owing to polymer binder swelling in MEK solvent, various pigment particles migrated and became better separated/differently distributed in the binder. (But such process cannot proceed in the case of Laclede primer, which contained only one Si-Al pigment (kaolinite). Note that there is no such separation in Fig. 10 in Bentham paper, Al and Si-rich areas coincide perfectly)...

 

[GlennB]

The red/gray chips produced iron-rich spheres when heated to 430^oC.

ftfy

 

[tsig]

If you think I'm going to read all that tripe your crazy. You are using the "talk it to death" denial tactic.

The Al and Si partially separated in the purple/green images I posted.

The red/gray chips produced iron spheres when heated to 430^oC.

You don't have to be a scientist to see that.

And all your verbose babbling cannot change those facts.

Right, why bother to read the posts you're replying to.

 

[NoahFence]

Thanks

Of course it's against forum rules to change someones quote but the rules [like insulting other posters] don't apply to the "in" crowd.

That's a lie.

 

[000063]

...

The number of visual and numerical matching points to a commercial CD, are far too many to dismiss the significance of FFA just because we can't generate a laboratory-precise response curve...

MM

How about the medical, audio, and logistical points compared to a commercial CD?

No, wait, there aren't any.

 

[000063]

Your excessive verbiage is to obfuscate the fact that you are the one with an "alternative perception of reality"....

I am assuming this is deliberately ironic hypocrisy, a conscious choice not to simply say "You're using lots of words to hide the fact that you're wrong".

The funny thing is that the quoted section of post is quite terse and laconic. You responded only to that part of the post, ignoring almost the entire rest of it, including the bits where Oys calls you on your straw man. In fact, the entire post is written in more or less conversational English, not "excessive verbiage".

 

[femr2]

Do you have trace and derived acceleration data of the NW corner from both viewpoints? If so, do they match?

If they match, that would play down the lens / warm air distortion arguments, as well as boost the argument on the accuracy of the data.

They are quite similar, yes...

Would have to have a dig for the more detailed Dan Rather graphs, but the same basic profile...pretty rapid to over-g, then diminishing acceleration.

 

[femr2]

Ok ... so you still have faith in your trace, which you posted earlier yesterday, and which I interprete as having ca. 0.75 seconds of a "Stage 1" of "slow buckling" (a increasing from near 0 to near g in that time). Am I reading that right?

About 1s by my eyes (12s-13s), though I wouldn't call that a "slow buckling" phase at all. That's T₀ (release) to maximum acceleration. Any "slow buckling" (creep) phase would be prior to T₀.

he takes your data and interprets it differently.

What, or who, is wrong here?

I'm confident in the acceleration profiles posted.

NW corner of WTC7 was in (flexure) motion minutes before release, however, once release began it was an extremely rapid transition (@~182s Black Graph Line)...

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...

Be that as it may, the creation of iron-rich spheres is proof of a thermitic reaction, your objections and denial notwithstanding.

No, it is not.

Do you know the difference between a red/gray chip and steel wool?

Chris - with so much to keep track of, I guess I can see how you lost track.

My little video is not about the difference between red/gray chips and steel wool, but it does show that the creation of iron-rich spheres is not proof of a thermitic reaction!

Hope that helps!

 

[Oystein]

If you think I'm going to read all that tripe your crazy.

How do you know it's tripe if you don't read it?

So you are running from facts, and dodging acknowledgements of facts, so you can pretend in the future like you still just err, instead being exposed as a liar in clear daylight. I make note of that.

Without tripe:

Can you, or can you not, acknowldege that the chips (a)-(d) are different from the MEK-soaked chip?
Can you, or can you not, acknowledge that the elemental composition as well es particle size and -shape of chips (a)-(d) very much resembles the LaClede primer formulation?
Can you, or can you not, acknowledge that the elemental composition of the MEK-soaked chip very much resembles that of Tnemec 99, as presented by SE Jones?

If you can't acknowledge any of these, why? Because you don't have the infirmation, or because you disagree?

You are using the "talk it to death" denial tactic.

You are using the "I won't listen so I won't learn" denial tactic.

The Al and Si partially separated in the purple/green images I posted.

Alright. I don't see that. Can you point me to regions in those maps that are either high in Si and low in Al, or vice versa? Thanks.

The red/gray chips produced iron spheres when heated to 430^oC.

This is false on two counts.

1. They were heated to 700°C.
2. And they did NIT produce iron spheres. They produces spheres that contain SOME iron atoms - whether elemental or not is undetermined because Jones and friends failed to use competent methods. Ask your chemist friend about these methods!

You have been corrected on the second point too many points to allow anyone to let this pass as a slip. Chris, are you saying "iron" on conscious purpose even though you KNOW that you ought to say "iron-rich"? If you do that again, I will call you on that lie. Understood?

You don't have to be a scientist to see that.

If you are honest (which is in very grave doubt), you totally overestimate your abilities.

 

[Oystein]

About 1s by my eyes (12s-13s), though I wouldn't call that a "slow buckling" phase at all. That's T₀ (release) to maximum acceleration. Any "slow buckling" (creep) phase would be prior to T₀.

I quoted achimspok there - let's not get hung up on the phrase "slow buckling". We are talking that "Stage 1" which lasts from release to reaching g, which you eyeball as being about 1s, and which achimspok describes as "reaches almost immediately G acceleration" and "There is no Stage 1".

You haven't addressed achimspok's interpretation of the data, or his own data, so I am still in the dark about whether or not you see a discrepancy between him and yourself, or whether the problem is my interpretation of what he says.


Again, I am under the impression that achimspok denies the existence of this 1-second stage of increasing acceleration, which you just confirmed. Is he diagreeing with you? Are you diasgreeing with him?

 

[pgimeno]

They are quite similar, yes...

Would have to have a dig for the more detailed Dan Rather graphs, but the same basic profile...pretty rapid to over-g, then diminishing acceleration.

I'm confused. What viewpoint is this image from then? The graph doesn't say.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/447669743.png

Also when you said this:

My primary (preferred) trace datasets are extracted from the Dan Rather viewpoint...

I understood that you meant that it was from the Dan Rather video. Seems I'm wrong. Proper labeling would have helped avoiding confusion.

 

[chrismohr]

Thanks femr for bringing your information to this thread. It may help clear up disagreements based on ignorance.