Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[Oystein]

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.

The grinning bee says so - it must be so.

It should be fairly easy for you to point out where Harrit e.al. describe white smoke, alumina, or analysis results of the DSC residue containing aluminium oxide.

I say Harrit e.al. have not identified ANY alumina residue, neither by sight nor by any analytical method. This is an easy to falsify claim if it were false.

If you can't falsify it, I guess it stays unchallenged.

No doubt

I don't know all the technical details

No doubt.

The red/grey chips ignited at ~430^oC,

They actually ignited (started to exhibit exotherm reactions) much earlier than 430°C, but were heated to 700°C. There really is nothing special about this number of 430°C wrt to the producing of spheres.

released a sudden burst of energy

Nope. FALSE. In the DSC, they kept smoldering and slowly releasing energy slowly over the course of many minutes.

and produced iron-rich spheres with the same signature as the iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust.

Very roughly, yes. It's apparently what happens when building materials, some organic, some inorganic, burn.

 

[Oystein]

The Red layer burned ("burst of energy") at 430C, the Gray layer melts.

Conjecture.

Harrit e.al., page 19:

The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm

So the red layer burned, the gray layer didn't, as per Harrit e.al. Agreed?
So where is the gray layer then? Do you see in Fig 20 how there is a lot of red layer left, but strangely any gray substance is now drawn to spherical shapes? Where did the gray layer go, and where did the gray spheres come from?
In Harrit's and your theory, the red, "nano-sized" iron oxide (particle size ~100-200 nm, just like ordinary red pigment) of the red layer was reduced to elemental iron, so anything that was red before should now be gone. That elemental iron allegedly formed spheres, aluminium oxide was created from elemental Al in the red layer, and the gray layer did not react.

But that is all contradicted by the data:

• There are still a lot of nano-sized iron oxide pigments left after the reaction, as evidenced quite simply by the red color of that layer
• The gray layer seems to just have changed shape
• Harrit e.al. never showed any proof at all for alumina

What a bad theory you have there! It explains precious little of the observations, and is contradicted by many!

 

[000063]

In Wonderland JREF, you can be who and whatever you wish to be.

MM

Would you care to address the conflict between Femr2 and Sarns? Because Chris7 says NIST is outright lying or correct as he pleases, but when Femr says NIST is simply mistaken, 7 makes a lot of bluster about how he's clearly wrong and has no credentials.

 

[triforcharity]

Do you know of another explanation?

Nope, I am not a metallurgist. But, you do make the claim, so you back it up. Show me that A-Thermite or nano thermite produces oxygen rich spheres, (No, the John Cole video is not proof of that. ) and B-That is unique to a thermite reaction.

I'll wait....

 

[LSSBB]

Nope, I am not a metallurgist. But, you do make the claim, so you back it up. Show me that A-Thermite or nano thermite produces oxygen rich spheres, (No, the John Cole video is not proof of that. ) and B-That is unique to a thermite reaction.

I'll wait....

He seems to have the hardest time with B. We did a whole thread on that and he still clung to his theory.

 

[Miragememories]

"In Wonderland JREF, you can be who and whatever you wish to be."

"Would you care to address the conflict between Femr2 and Sarns? Because Chris7 says NIST is outright lying or correct as he pleases, but when Femr says NIST is simply mistaken, 7 makes a lot of bluster about how he's clearly wrong and has no credentials."

Since when do people with similar viewpoints have to be in total agreement?

Is a liar not also mistaken?

When an organization as large and as powerful as the NIST makes uncharacteristic technical errors that all prove to be self serving to NIST conclusions, arguing that 'chit happens', doesn't pass muster.

The NIST had the staffing, the expertise, the money, and the time, but not the political support necessary to ensure their WTC Reports were accurate and truly objective.

In his lack of support and open resistance to the 9/11 Commission, President Bush clearly showed he wanted an end to the 9/11 onshore accounting.

And if you do not believe that Government bureaucrats managing departments like the NIST, are not strongly effected by the will of their political masters, you are incredibly naive.

Don't rock the boat baby.

Right makes right, kind of thinking.

In the case of The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7, you can easily see the forest.

That is, if you don't get preoccupied with each individual tree. Tree 79 gets way too much attention.

Danny Jowenko easily saw the forest in a way that FEMR doesn't.

For those who have been living in a cave, Danny Jowenko (RIP) was an expert in building demolitions, and the president of a large European demolition company whose livelihood depended on a life-dependent understanding of how structurally failing buildings behaved.

In a post-9/11 TV News documentary shot a few years ago, unaware that the building collapse video he was being shown was associated with the events of 9/11, he was asked to give his professional interpretation when he viewed for his first time, the recorded collapse of the WTC7.

To his early grave, Danny Jowenko remained unequivocal in his certainty that the collapse of WTC7 was absolutely a controlled demolition.

It is reported that Danny Jowenko died in a single-vehicle accident on his way home from Sunday church services.

MM

 

[femr2]

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?

Perhaps by "almost immediate" he means ~1s, but I doubt it. I don't think Achimspok did too many acceleration profile derivations, and focussed on velocity profiles, so perhaps his interpretation was based upon inspection of velocity data only.

Am not keen on the word "staging" as it confuses interpretation with the silly NIST staging.

T₀ (release) to maximum acceleration took ~1s (pretty consistent across trace point and video viewpoint)

 

[femr2]

Looking at the "raw" measurements, I get the impression that the signal-to-noise ratio is very good.

A lot of effort was applied to ensure the very highest possible data quality, utilising original DV video recordings, per-field tracing, static point extraction, ...

I'm just wondering whether that particular element can be improved.

The techniques were developed over quite a period of time, and I'm personally not aware of any way to increase raw data accuracy. It's well sub-pixel already, and the limitation is the quality of the original recordings imo.

Actually, with or without measurement error, high-order polynomials just often seem to do inappropriate (or questionably appropriate) things.

Of course. Later traces utilise Savitzky-Golay smoothing for derivation of velocity and acceleration profiles.

For instance, they may indicate local maxima or minima that aren't observed in the actual data, out of mathematical necessity rather than empirical necessity. Or not.

There is of course some (sub-pixel) noise in the data (which is amplified greatly when deriving velocity and especially acceleration), and whilst tracing similar points on different video viewpoints results in slightly different results, the general profile shape is very consistent (rapid increase in acceleration to slightly over-g, followed by gradual reduction in acceleration).

Here's a few different smoothing methods from the same raw data...

 

[femr2]

FEMR is a lot of noise. He has no credentials and no credibility at all. He claims to know better than the "experts" at NIST and a teacher with two masters degrees.

My trace data for WTC7 is certainly of much higher fidelity and quality than that produced by the others you mention. Rightly or wrongly, none of those others spent about 18 months spare-spare time developing the methods and procedures required to generate such high quality raw data.

Only the fanatically faithful believe this anonymous blowhard over people on both sides of the CD argument with real credentials who agree that WTC 7 fell at FFA for about 100 feet.

Here...

The red line (LHS axis) shows displacement (ft)
The black line (RHS axis) shows acceleration (ft/s^2)

If you want to call the period between 13s and 14.5s "about freefall", then fine, "about" 75ft "about" freefall.

At freefall ? Nope.

There's a couple of very boring and lengthy thread which discuss the process by which the data was extracted from video, along with direct critique of both the NIST and Chandler datasets. Have a peek.

Here is the NIST acceleration curve (in green)...


Where is there ANY time AT freefall ?

The red line spans 2.25s, btw.

Anyway, suggest you locate the appropriate threads for critique of the data. It is good data, and should be useful to all "sides".

 

[beachnut]

A lot of effort was applied to ensure the very highest possible data quality, utilising original DV video recordings, per-field tracing, static point extraction, ...

The techniques were developed over quite a period of time, and I'm personally not aware of any way to increase raw data accuracy. It's well sub-pixel already, and the limitation is the quality of the original recordings imo.

Of course. Later traces utilise Savitzky-Golay smoothing for derivation of velocity and acceleration profiles.

There is of course some (sub-pixel) noise in the data (which is amplified greatly when deriving velocity and especially acceleration), and whilst tracing similar points on different video viewpoints results in slightly different results, the general profile shape is very consistent (rapid increase in acceleration to slightly over-g, followed by gradual reduction in acceleration).

Here's a few different smoothing methods from the same raw data...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png

The data is smoothed so badly and collected with a made up method. You have taken data with low resonlution in time and space, and applied methods which distort it. Now you have a silk purse and it serves zero purpose, no goal.

If we were fabricating chips in the 70s, and you were the Japaneses with clean super fine traces; that might be a plus in 10 years, but it serves no purpose in the 70s. Your work is goal free nonsense.

What did NIST used their acceleration study for? Your work is not good for academic purposes, it shows no validations for anything used. No documentation. Your work should have 100 to 1000 pages of supporting effort by now. What is the work good for?

You attack NIST, when we should only see your work, and not even know what NIST did. Can't 911 truth do original work which stands by itself, and not be delusional nonsense?

... For those who have been living in a cave, Danny Jowenko (RIP) was an expert in building demolitions, and the president of a large European demolition company whose livelihood depended on a life-dependent understanding of how structurally failing buildings behaved.

To his early grave, Danny Jowenko remained unequivocal in his certainty that the collapse of WTC7 was absolutely a controlled demolition.

It is reported that Danny Jowenko died in a single-vehicle accident on his way home from Sunday church services.

MM

What does his death have to do with 911? Nothing.
Danny said no CD for WTC 1 and 2. He is 67 percent right. 911 truth remains 100 percent wrong. Why do you leave out what he said about WTC 1 and 2?

 

[femr2]

...

Yawn. Start here.

Savitzky-Golay smoothing is ideal. Usage of SynthEyes (or similar feature tracking systems) are far from a "made up method". The procedures I used were certainly refined over a period of time, resulting in higher and higher quality results along the way. Static point extraction resulted in significant improvement. Video field separation was a no-brainer (which NIST and co didn't bother to do). I rather doubt there are other "experts" in extraction of sub-pixel accurate relative feature motion data from video for the purpose of deriving velocity and acceleration profiles out there, but by all means highlight their "published works"

The Savitzky–Golay smoothing filter is a filter that essentially performs a local polynomial regression (of degree k) on a series of values (of at least k+1 points which are treated as being equally spaced in the series) to determine the smoothed value for each point. The main advantage of this approach is that it tends to preserve features of the distribution such as relative maxima, minima and width, which are usually 'flattened' by other adjacent averaging techniques.

Per-sample local polynomial regression is ideal for the purpose, but if you want to apply another method of deriving acceleration profile from the raw data, be my guest. Several datasets can be found here.

 

[Miragememories]

"...In the case of The Mysterious Collapse of WTC7, you can easily see the forest.

That is, if you don't get preoccupied with each individual tree. Tree 79 gets way too much attention.

Danny Jowenko easily saw the forest in a way that FEMR doesn't.

For those who have been living in a cave, Danny Jowenko (RIP) was an expert in building demolitions, and the president of a large European demolition company whose livelihood depended on a life-dependent understanding of how structurally failing buildings behaved.

In a post-9/11 TV News documentary shot a few years ago, unaware that the building collapse video he was being shown was associated with the events of 9/11, he was asked to give his professional interpretation when he viewed for his first time, the recorded collapse of the WTC7.

To his early grave, Danny Jowenko remained unequivocal in his certainty that the collapse of WTC7 was absolutely a controlled demolition.

It is reported that Danny Jowenko died in a single-vehicle accident on his way home from Sunday church services."

"What does his death have to do with 911? Nothing.

Danny said no CD for WTC 1 and 2. He is 67 percent right. 911 truth remains 100 percent wrong.

Why do you leave out what he said about WTC 1 and 2?"

He was one of the brave professional contradictors of the 9/11 official prevailing belief.

His opinions were very informative.

You and many others here constantly attack Danny Jowenko's WTC7 collapse conclusions on the basis that he accepts the NIST conclusions about WTC1 & WTC2.

In a later phone interview, Danny Jowenko said that since the first interview, he had studied WTC7, and that he absolutely stood by his original conclusions.

He also said how he understood other demolition companies in the U.S. not questioning the official story because of the risk to their business.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

I mention this because of his supposed contradiction in collapse beliefs.

Like the rest of the world, Danny Jowenko either saw live, or repeatedly replayed, the aircraft strikes and the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

Like most of the world, Danny Jowenko never saw live, or repeatedly replayed, the collapse of WTC7.

As the president of a company specializing in building demolitions, Danny Jowenko had lots of time to consider his views on the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers prior to his first interview.

As the president of a company specializing in building demolitions, being filmed for a 2006 TV News documentary, Danny Jowenko had lots of time to consider how foolish he and his company would look if they were 'trapped' in a mistake by some News interview question.

He was asked about the Twin Towers first and he gave the 'safe' answer. Bad for future business to argue with common belief.

No safety net of foreknowledge for the next video.

When he was asked to screen the video of an unidentified 47-story building collapsing, Danny Jowenko was not influenced by any 9/11 association.

He was certain it was not a natural collapse, that he was seeing the work of a competitor.

MM

 

[000063]

Since when do people with similar viewpoints have to be in total agreement?...

MM

They don't. Straw man.

I'm referring to Chris7's double standards. Actually, more like triple. He decries Femr for not being an authority and contradicting NIST's report, yet he himself says that same report is either valid or lying--with no other option ground--as he pleases. You seem to be trying to put the report in some sort of quantum superposition where it both makes "self-serving" mistakes and actively lies at the same time.

It's also kind of hypocritical to cite Jowenko as solid proof, yet ignore the fact that NIST's report is endorsed by the ASCE (With a membership of over a hundred thousand) and used in several college courses, meaning thousands more people are looking at at it and most find no problem. But hey, as long as a dutch guy looking at a single video says it's CD, it's CD, right? As for his death...

How many names of witnesses and experts have been abused by the truth movement since 2001? What was their average age? How many years have past? Ergo: What percentage / how many of them would be expected to die in that time if mortality among 9/11 witnesses and experts was the same as that for any random group of adults in the western world? Or do you expect all of these people to be immortal?
During the same time, 2 of my colleagues died. My company had a total of no more than 50 or 60 diferent employees during those 10 years, most of them relatively young (in their 20s and 30s) in 2001.
Do you think my company is victim to a conspiracy, because 2 of us died? Do you think the TM has less than 50 crown witnesses, total? Or does it dawn on you now that people dying is the most natural thing in the world?

But if you have anything more than vague statements about how the report might be corrupt, please provide them. For example, I have never ever found a truther willing to explain how the conspirators knew that WTC 1 would hit WTC 7 in a precise manner in order to plant the explosives.

Or how they knew exactly where and how the jets for WTC 1/2 would hit and what impact they would have in order to plant the explosives, again, in a precise pattern.

 

[Redwood]

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

It is really absurd for a bunch of anonymous blowhards to say Ph.D's with 20 years experience as professors are all wrong.

I'm not saying that "spheres produced by a thermitic reaction contain 50% aluminum". I AM saying that one mole of thermite, by basic chemistry, produces 102 g of aluminum oxide and 112 g of iron. In common discourse, 102/214 is "almost 50%". Since the density of alumina is about half that of iron, the volume of alumina produced would be about double that of the iron.

In its most common use, welding, thermite produces an obvious slag of aluminum oxide which is removed from the finished product.

If all the aluminum oxide produced in Harrit and Jones's experiment had been emitted as white particulate matter, so much the better for collecting it and characterizing it. Childishly simple, almost, for any competent chemical analytical laboratory.

Aluminum oxide product is not unique to a thermite reaction, but lack of aluminum oxide product is a nail in the coffin of any hypothetical thermite. No aluminum oxide = no thermite.

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Where was the basement of WTC7?

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Are you sure? What is the temperature reached by the organic binder of paint during burning?

 

[pgimeno]

They actually ignited (started to exhibit exotherm reactions) much earlier than 430°C, but were heated to 700°C. There really is nothing special about this number of 430°C wrt to the producing of spheres.

I've been wondering if the exotherm peak might be the result of the melting of the steel layer. Is that possible?

 

[pgimeno]

You are the one "spinning". The aluminum is released as white smoke and the spheres produced by a thermitic reaction do not contain 50% aluminum as you try to imply.

That claim, of course, is plain absurd; aluminium is used because of its high boiling point:

At the same time, [aluminium's] high boiling point (2,519 °C (4,566 °F)) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.

[...]

The thermites are characterized by almost complete absence of gas production during burning, high reaction temperature, and production of molten slag. The fuel should have high heat of combustion and produce oxides with low melting point and high boiling point.
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

How on Earth was the aluminium oxide going reach its boiling point necessary to evaporate in such a setup?

But it was worth a shot, wasn't it?

Argument dismissed; if it was a thermitic reaction and the iron is there then aluminium oxide SHOULD be there as well. It isn't, therefore it wasn't a thermitic reaction.


By the way, is it me, or the red residue from the DSC chips may look somewhat like the low temperature ashing results?

 

[Oystein]

I've been wondering if the exotherm peak might be the result of the melting of the steel layer. Is that possible?

No. Melting is endotherm, isn't it?

 

[beachnut]

Yawn. Start here.

Savitzky-Golay smoothing is ideal. ....

Wow, source that one. Asked you to source it in "Start here", but you never did. Got a reference yet?

You did not publish yet, the "Start here" stuff never had a goal or explained why the work is needed. I read NIST, and there is no need for the data to be smoothed etc. It can be done like NIST did it. The sub-pixel junk is nonsense; if you don't understand why it is in your case, you need to get help. No goal after how long?

You never tied your work to goals, or explain how it changes the NIST conclusion. How does your excessively processed data change the SUMMARY OF FINDINGS from NIST?