How does Gage make a living?

[Dave Rogers]

What do you mean "based purely on content"?

I mean that, in every case, the content of the truther argument has been analysed and found to be without merit. In general, they tend to be based on misinformation, outright lies, or handwaving speculation that is refuted by the calculations it declines to attempt.

Nevertheless, Dave, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is simply not true.

Military-grade energetic material found in the WTC dust is evidence, and further gives credence to the initial proposition that the towers were brought down not by the plane crash alone.

How can you dismiss these findings out of hand, corroborated by an increasing number of reputable scientists, besides through ad hominem attacks against 1. the scientists who made the findings and 2. the scientific paper that published the article?

I can dismiss them solely on the basis that the energy yield of this material is significantly greater than the theoretical maximum energy yield of a thermite reaction. This, combined with the fact that the differential scanning calorimetry analysis was carried out in an air ambient, makes it quite clear that the reaction observed was simple combustion of the organic binder; since only a single reaction peak was recorded, this is very good proof that no thermite reaction was observed. The evidence is, therefore, that the material found was trivial combustible material.

I can also dismiss them on the basis that your identification of the material analysed as "Military-grade energetic material" is pure speculation; no evidence has been advanced that there is any similar material produced by any military organisation.

I can also dismiss them on the basis that the materials found, even if they were the thermitic material the results prove them not to be, were present in layers too thin to have any significant effect on the structural properties of any component of the towers.

And, finally, I would point out that your confirmation bias is showing if you can even suggest the possibility of an ad hominem attack against a scientific paper, as the bolding of the above quote makes it clear you are doing.

Your counter-argument is weak.

No. You're just misrepresenting it in order to pretend it's weak.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I wonder the same thing about all the people who post so frequently here.

MM

I'm a Mech Design Eng for a large American Computer Corporation and have been for more than 20 years.

My Debunking is Pro Bono

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What do you mean "based purely on content"?

Nevertheless, Dave, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is simply not true.

Military-grade energetic material found in the WTC dust is evidence, and further gives credence to the initial proposition that the towers were brought down not by the plane crash alone.

How can you dismiss these findings out of hand, corroborated by an increasing number of reputable scientists, besides through ad hominem attacks against 1. the scientists who made the findings and 2. the scientific paper that published the article?

Your counter-argument is weak.

But no such material was found. The "energetic" material was no more energetic than paint. Gages et al "paper" is full of basic flaws that call into question his honesty and/or sanity and competence.

 

[Quiproquo]

I mean that, in every case, the content of the truther argument has been analysed and found to be without merit. In general, they tend to be based on misinformation, outright lies, or handwaving speculation that is refuted by the calculations it declines to attempt.



I can dismiss them solely on the basis that the energy yield of this material is significantly greater than the theoretical maximum energy yield of a thermite reaction. This, combined with the fact that the differential scanning calorimetry analysis was carried out in an air ambient, makes it quite clear that the reaction observed was simple combustion of the organic binder; since only a single reaction peak was recorded, this is very good proof that no thermite reaction was observed. The evidence is, therefore, that the material found was trivial combustible material.

I can also dismiss them on the basis that your identification of the material analysed as "Military-grade energetic material" is pure speculation; no evidence has been advanced that there is any similar material produced by any military organisation.

I can also dismiss them on the basis that the materials found, even if they were the thermitic material the results prove them not to be, were present in layers too thin to have any significant effect on the structural properties of any component of the towers.

And, finally, I would point out that your confirmation bias is showing if you can even suggest the possibility of an ad hominem attack against a scientific paper, as the bolding of the above quote makes it clear you are doing.



No. You're just misrepresenting it in order to pretend it's weak.

Dave

Dave, do you have first-hand knowledge of what you are talking about?

 

[tsig]

If I had known what you meant by that phrase I wouldn't have asked. I see you are here to play games and obscure meanings rather than communicate.

And asking a definition to a word in an online forum when you possess, at the tip of your fingers, an encyclopedia with access to a universe of knowledge is what then, astute?

There are websites on the internet called "search engines." They are designed to help you find information about something, anything. It only takes the time you take to type to find an answer to any question you may have. You should try it some day, and learn something.

deleted on further reading

 

[Dog Town]

Dave, do you have first-hand knowledge of what you are talking about?

And you do? Do tell!

 

[patchbunny]

Um, where, exactly?

The physics and engineering classrooms of any university.

 

[uk_dave]

How does Gage make a living?

Isn't she in porn? In which case I'm sure Charlie Sheen has his hand in his pocket.... so to speak.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, do you have first-hand knowledge of what you are talking about?

I've been a professional scientist for over a quarter of a century, but simple high-school chemistry is enough to show that Harrit et al's conclusions are utterly wrong.

Dave

 

[Quiproquo]

I've been a professional scientist for over a quarter of a century, but simple high-school chemistry is enough to show that Harrit et al's conclusions are utterly wrong.

Dave

Nice way to dodge the question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nice way to dodge the question.

I have copious first-hand knowledge of carrying out experiments and interpreting their results, I am capable of noticing that 7.5J/g is a larger number than 4J/g, I am capable of looking up the heat capacity of structural steel, and I can read and comprehend complex technical documents. What else, exactly, did you want to know whether I have first-hand knowledge of?

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

I don't understand the sarcasm. If we make the assumption about the possibility of an existing conspiracy, then it is not illogical to believe that there will be attempts to discredit the opposition movement, either though agents or dupes, in virtual or in real-life.

Right, but Truthers make these accusations of their detractors being "agents" or "dupes" based on nothing more than the fact that they believe such people exist.

It is no different from accusing your opponent of being a rapist, based on nothing more than the fact that rapists exist.

It's generally wrong to make accusations against people without any evidence to support those accusations, wouldn't you agree? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the prevailing philosophy of civilized societies. If you have any evidence that anybody here is an "agent", then present it. If not, then admit that these accusations have zero merit.


EDIT: Furthermore, even if, hypothetically, one of us was an "agent", what relevance would that have on the discussion exactly? Should not an argument be judged based on the quality of the argument itself, rather than on the person making the argument? If an "agent" says that the sky is blue, is he any less correct simply because he is an "agent"?

You rapist.

 

[Architect]

I'm from Scotland. What is this "blue" you talk about when considering the sky?

 

[TJM]

Leaving socks aside, I think nine posts is close to the record low.

No.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134090

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Military-grade energetic material found in the WTC dust is evidence, and further gives credence to the initial proposition that the towers were brought down not by the plane crash alone.

You know, I'm trying to figure out just how "military-grade" material differs so much from sample to sample in its energy density. Jones and Harrit themselves published that data.

I'd also like to understand the mental pathology that attempts to critique the established narrative via vague attacks on the established narrative while committing fundamental errors of cognition while doing so. The failure to recognize not only hyperbole, but outright misrepresentation when a material is hyped as "military grade" without support (and indeed, without anything more than a sly, sideways reference that amounts to nothing more than a fallaciously syllogistic allegation¹) is confounding to the point that it arouses my curiosity as to the mental process that leads to such confabulation about this historical event.

See? We adults can use the big words too. But we try to make a point while doing so, not to baffle with BS and obsfucate with obdurate dedication to long disproven narratives.




1. This "syllogistic allegation" does indeed exist in the Jones/Harrit paper. It reads as follows:

"A report on an April 2001 conference discloses who was known to be working on such explosives at that time:

The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held during April 2001 in San Diego featured a symposium on Defense Applications of Nanomaterials. One of the 4 sessions was titled nanoenergetics…. This session provided a good representation of the breadth of work ongoing in this field, which is roughly 10 years old.… At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management [20].
​

The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level."

Footnote is to: Miziolek AW. Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance. Amptiac Q 2002; 6(1): 43-48. [Accessed February 7, 2009].
Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf

The team clearly attempts to paint (pun intended) the substance as not merely thermite, but military grade thermite by making reference to the fact that DoD research into "nanoenergetics" was conducted within the same timeframe as the September 11th event. Note that no actual link to the government was made, and our own rebuttals demonstrate the error in even identifying the substance as thermite. We could think of lots of events that also happened that same year, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the material was "military grade" thermite, any more than the presence of wings on a penguin justifies a conclusion that penguins can fly. That is why I phrase the smear as a "syllogistic allegation". It's a handwave designed to lead in a direction, as well as to obscure the fact that the link is nonexistent.

 

[triforcharity]

No.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134090

holy ****

 

[Mr.D]

Isn't she in porn? In which case I'm sure Charlie Sheen has his hand in his pocket.... so to speak.

That's Gauge.

I mean, err ... What are you talking about? Are you trying to put the image of naked Richard Gage in my head? ... Eww.

Never mind. Post deleted due to ... computer problems, yeah, that's it.

 

[Mr.D]

In addition, I would like to point out to you many of these Truthers you so seemingly disregard have taken considerable risk in exposing what they believe is a fraud. Professor Steven Jones, for example, was fired from his tenured university position for taking a stand in the controversy surrounding the attacks.

So a total of one (1) person quit his job.

Is that really "many" truthers taking "considerable risk?"

What other considerable consequences have others survived? Did a pigeon poop on Avery's car for making Loose Change? Did Alex Jones' paperboy toss the morning news behind the bushes again in retaliation for talking about nanothermyte? Tell us what brutal suppression techniques are being used to hide the truth!

 

[Justin39640]

So a total of one (1) person quit his job.

Is that really "many" truthers taking "considerable risk?"

What other considerable consequences have others survived? Did a pigeon poop on Avery's car for making Loose Change? Did Alex Jones' paperboy toss the morning news behind the bushes again in retaliation for talking about nanothermyte? Tell us what brutal suppression techniques are being used to hide the truth!

The deafening roar of crickets as the world ignores their insanity.