Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redwood said:
Jones and Harrit hunting around for "iron rich" (not elemental iron) microspheres is a red flag. A thermite reaction MUST produce almost 50% by weight aluminum oxide (alumina). Ignoring the metallic iron question, why not look for globs of easily identifiable alumina? The best spin I could put on this is to ascribe it to incompetence.
Click to expand...

The Black and White Checkered Flag was waving for about 90 days after 9/11 while molten steel and unextinguishable fires reigned in the basements of
WCT 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.
 
Miragememories said:
You persist in your claim that the MEK-soaked chip was not from the same batch of 4 independent samples.
Click to expand...
No, I don't make that claim at all. What a bizarre misunderstanding you have there!

Please read my argument more closely:
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-red-gray-chips-arent-all-same.html
and
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2011/03/steven-jones-proves-primer-paint-not.html


Then try again. All of the following is nonsense wrt to my claims, because you got your premise so astonishingly wrong:
Miragememories said:
On what basis?

The Bentham Paper clearly indicated that the MEK-soaked chip was from the sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, the earliest-collected of the four samples, obtained 10 minutes after the collapse of WTC1.

They called his contribution Sample (2) and that it corresponded with chip (b).

They specifically stated that the MEK-soaked chip came from Sample (2).

MM
Click to expand...
What on earth is that supposed to mean???


Look. I could go under your bed and collact a sample of dust from it and call this contribution "Sample (2)". If I then extract a particle from it and call it "chip b", and another particle and soak it in MEK, would you then conclude that the MEK-soaked particle from under your bed is the same material as "chip b" from under your bed, because both are from "Sample (2)"?

What if "chip 2" turned out to be a piece of paint from the wall, and the MEK-soaked particle turned out to be a sperm from your masturbating - would you then be convinced that you ejaculate paint, or would you think they painted your walls with semen, or would you allow for the possibility that "chip (b)" and the "MEK-soaked chip", both from "Sample (2)" are two different materials?



Jeebus - why do we have to address such utter stupidity here in the morning.... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
C7 said:
It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.
Click to expand...
DGM said:
And your criticism of NIST would be different, how?
Click to expand...
I have shown that the NIST hypothesis of fire causing the collapse of WTC 7 is not possible using the information in the NIST reports. It's not an opinion of their methods and results as you are doing, just the fact that the fire had burned out.
 
Oystein said:
Harrit e.al. pretend that they did the DSC test to replicate the tests Tillotson and Gash did on their nanothermite preparation.Tillotson and Gash identified the alumina residue and tested it positively using PXRD (powdered X-ray diffraction). Harrit e.al. have not identified ANY alumina residue, neither by sight nor by any analytical method.
Click to expand...
The grinning bee says so - it must be so. :rolleyes:

Why you claim that "aluminum is released as white smoke" is quite beyond me.
Click to expand...
No doubt

I don't know all the technical details but the basics can be understood by anyone. You look for things to piss and moan about in order to avoid the basics. The red/grey chips ignited at ~430oC, released a sudden burst of energy and produced iron-rich spheres with the same signature as the iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.
 
cjnewson88 said:
What would a very small amount of carbon steel do if heated to 430C? Judging by burning steel wool, it would form an Iron-rich sphere.
Click to expand...
You have very poor judgment. Try it and see what happens, Take your bic lighter and hold it to a piece if steel for a while, document and post your results.
 
A piece of steel as tiny as that on the red/gray chip wouldn't be far off the size of steel wool (in fact it's probably smaller). So far as to say, it would react similar.
 
Last edited:
cjnewson88 said:
A piece of steel as tiny as that on the red/gray chip wouldn't be far off the size of steel wool (in fact it's probably smaller). So far as to say, it would react similar.
Click to expand...
That is just conjecture. Do an experiment and demonstrate instead of making baseless assumptions.

BTW: It would not create a burst of energy at 430oC.
 
The Red layer burned ("burst of energy") at 430C, the Gray layer melts.

The video I linked you proves steel filaments can melt and form iron-rich mircospheres under the low temperature of a bic lighter. The experiment has been done. Steel filaments melted at a low temperature and formed microspheres. Your argument is debunked.
 
Last edited:
Conjecture that at 430C the red layer burns and the Gray layer doesn't? Your video and images would say otherwise..
You are debunked.



Dunno about you, but I only see the red layer burning..


edit: nice dodge btw -

The video I linked you proves steel filaments can melt and form iron-rich mircospheres under the low temperature of a bic lighter. The experiment has been done. Steel filaments melted at a low temperature and formed microspheres. Your argument is debunked.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cjnewson88 said:
The Red layer burned ("burst of energy") at 430C, the Gray layer melts.

The video I linked you proves steel filaments can melt and form iron-rich mircospheres under the low temperature of a bic lighter. The experiment has been done. Steel filaments melted at a low temperature and formed microspheres.
Click to expand...
Low temperature?

The temperature of a Bic lighter flame is 1977C or 3590.6F.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_hot_does_a_bic_lighter_flame_get
http://www.derose.net/steve/resources/engtables/flametemp.html

Your argument is debunked.
 
cjnewson88 said:
Conjecture that at 430C the red layer burns and the Gray layer doesn't?
Your video and images would say otherwise..
Click to expand...
That's Mark Basile's video and he says the gray layer did not ignite.

"But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites." http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-27/chemical-engineer-mark-basile-discusses-911-wtc-dust
 
So why after heating is most of the red layer clearly intact as you have demonstrated and not fully reacted?
Christopher7 said:
fig20.jpg
Click to expand...
And the gray layer is no longer there, but small round gray particles which can only come from the gray layer left?

Where did the gray layer go Chris?

Funny how this low temperature nano-thermite doesn't fully react even when the DSC heats it to 700°C, some 270°C above the temperature you claim a thermite reaction occured.
 
Christopher7 said:
Low temperature?

The temperature of a Bic lighter flame is 1977C or 3590.6F.
Click to expand...

Your quick google search fails. The response given to the question you linked is based on the peak burning temperature of Butane. Butane also has an ignition temperature of 482-538 °C. Therefore, a bic lighter is somewhere between 482°C and 1970°C. Based on the tiny amount being burned, I would speculate nearer the lower figures, but hey, maybe tomorrow I'll go buy one and see. Either way, ~500°C melting a small filament of steel is 'low temperature' compared to thermite.

You're still debunked.

Christopher7 said:
That's Mark Basile's video and he says the gray layer did not ignite.

"But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites." http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-27/chemical-engineer-mark-basile-discusses-911-wtc-dust
Click to expand...

Ok, so I am right, and my comment was not conjecture. Do you always end up debunking yourself Chris?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom