Skip to main content

The Continuing Stupidity of Ruggero Santilli

Recently the following YouTube video of Thunder Energies Corporation, a company of fringe scientist Ruggero Santilli, has gotten quite some attention on the web, mainly on sites on the paranormal.

So what does Santilli claim this time? That antimatter produces antimatter-light and that it can be focussed using concave lenses. This in contrast to ‘ordinary’ light which you can focus with convex lenses. You can also read it in detail at the website of the company:

Matter-Antimatter annihilation also requires that antimatter-light must have energy opposite that of matter-light, as predicted by P. A. M. Dirac in 1932 and verified by R. M. Santilli in his decades of research on antimatter (see the the theoretical confirmation and the experimental confirmation).

This claim by Santilli might be the easiest to debunk of all the extraordinary claims he has made (like the existence of magnecules and his alternative explanation for why the sun colors red when it sets). The whole concept of antimatter-light is bullshit, because the anti-particle of a photon is simply a photon. So if you want to speak of antimatter-light it’s no different than ‘normal’ light. ‘Antimatter-light’ will therefore not focus with a concave lens. I will not even bother trying to give explanations for the grainy images he took with his Santilli-‘out-of-focus’-telescope which he claims show Invisible Terrestrial Entities

Santilli writes that he has an article on this discovery of Invisible Terrestrial Entities in press with the American Journal of Modern Physics. That’s just one of those fake journals, which will probably print anything if you are willing to pay their fees (it’s on Beall’s list of predatory scholarly open-access publishers [mirror] – 24/5/2016: see update below). It’s not the first article on his silly Santilli telescope, some of affiliates wrote on it before in the same journal. And in 2014 Santilli wrote an article, together with some friends: “Preliminary confirmations of antimatter detection via Santilli’s telescope with concave lenses”.

kadeisvili-antimatterlight-telescope-cliffordalgebra

‘But wait, there is no Santilli mentioned as author!’, you might think. That’s right, but in another article on my website (from May 2013) you’ll find my proof that ‘J.V. Kadeisvili’ is just an alias for Ruggero Santilli himself: ‘Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli‘. The website of this journal doesn’t show any useful info at the moment, but from an announcement (2011) we pick up that the Editor in Chief is (or was) Svetlin Georgiev, who has written a five volume book series on the iso-mathematics of Santilli. I wonder how much Santilli paid for that service.

Is Santilli just a mad professor? Or is he a cunning scam artist trying to sell his ‘Santilli-ofocus-scopes’ (or even better: stock in his businesses) to people who fall easily for sciency sounding nonsense? Maybe both …

Update May 24th 2016: Beall is now very clear on this publisher: “Science Publishing Group is a threat to researchers, a threat to science communication, and a threat to science.” (see: Science Publishing Group: A Complete Scam [mirror])

Update August 25th 2016: Santilli is not happy at all with this post, see ‘More Santilli Shenanigans‘.

Update November 2nd 2016: next chapter in this story, ‘Sued by Santilli‘.

62 thoughts on “The Continuing Stupidity of Ruggero Santilli

  1. H3LLO 4LL!

    Santilli’s top priority must be to develop and disseminate the TEC nuclear equipment and combustion equipment as fast as possible.

    Santilli needs to pull his head out of his 4ss and stop wasting people’s valuable time and energy, including his own. No lies. No deception. No hate mails. No worthless legal battles. No 42-foot yacht. No mafia games. Just real science and real work. Get the job done like an honest man. Not a bunch of fake BS.

    On one hand, I agree that most of Santilli’s claims concerning the unethical scientific groups are likely to be incorrect or highly exaggerated. On the other hand, however, my experience and gut instincts tell me that there may be some truth to his claims, and that such claims must be investigated by law enforcement and, quite frankly, anybody who believes in freedom of speech, scientific democracy, self-defense, and justice. To me, it is clear that various unscientific, mafia-style, transnational groups with unethical interests have repeatedly attacked Santilli over some of his discoveries. This type of mafia-tribal-territorial-primate-BS behavior isn’t surprising in fields such as politics, business, or even science (unfortunately). Such groups are focused on power and control… not the scientific method, not evaluating new hypotheses, and not making new discoveries. Such operations happen all the time, all over the place, on numerous scales. This isn’t rocket science, it’s human nature.

    Unfortunately, after decades of such attacks, Santilli has become severely emotionally compromised, which has further caused him to become paranoid and delusional, which has further caused him to repeat the same mafia-tribal-territorial-primate-BS behavior by initiating attacks against people who have absolutely nothing to do with such unethical scientific groups. By now he is over 80 years old and has clearly lost the ability to distinguish between scientists who wish to get real work done, and “scientists” who may belong to such unethical groups of control freaks. Indeed, Santilli has become his own worst enemy. And this is unfortunate because he just drives people away, and thus any such related scientific progress comes to a halt.

    Prior to Santilli initiating such totally unwarranted attacks, Christian, Reza, myself, and other colleagues were willing to go to his conferences to collaborate and share knowledge and ideas. We wanted to investigate his mathematics ideas and discoveries via the scientific method. While I certainly do not agree with all of his work, I am very confident that TEC nuclear equipment and combustion equipment (along with the mathematics that enabled the creation of such technology) has unlimited potential, and that he has only scratched the surface of such developments. With additional collaboration, such developments could be advanced by many orders of magnitude to make meaningful contributions to STEM. But unfortunately, Santilli does not allow this to happen.

    Myself and colleagues made numerous proposals to the Santilli Club and its hidden “board of directors” in order to secure scientific research funding. We wanted the opportunity to do real science and get real work done, not play games. But as I said, Santilli’s paranoia got the best of him, and such progress came to a halt. It became clear that it’s impossible to work with Santilli, or rely on his establishment for any sort of “stable funding”.

    The Santilli Club’s attacks motivated Christian, Reza, and I to write the paper titled “Confusion with gravitation and cosmology” published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-3058-z, preprint: http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0206). We pointed out major flaws in Santilli’s theories of cosmology and gravitation. Among many things, this paper should further indicate to Santilli that his top priority should be to develop and disseminate the TEC nuclear equipment and combustion equipment as fast as possible; not gravitation and cosmology.

    1. Schmidt, I hope all this activity on behalf of your master Corda (he keeps repeating that you are “his students” ) lands you a good job! Maybe the same job that Corda has.
      by the way, I am not Ruggero Santilli and even if I were Santilli , it is not a “crime” to use an alias, especially in this type of discredited blogs.

      1. Who cares which Santilli actually typed those sentences. Email and IP address were used by Carla and IP address by ‘Luca Petronio’. Therefore ‘Mr. S.’ as in More Santilli Shenanigans. And it might be not a crime to use an alias on blogs like this, how is that in writing scientific articles?

      2. “Mr. Stone”, you are Santilli because you have not the balls to use your real name. It is better having my job rather than being a poor old and crackpot man obsessed by false conspiracies like you..

  2. I live quite far away from the US of A and only yesterday did I came across Mr. Santilli’s telescope and an article claiming the confirmation of his observations.
    I’m not really a young person and I’ve been building optics and telescopes since my youth, as a hobby. When I saw the telescope and that confirmation article, I thought something weird was going on, maybe I was going crazy or the laws of the universe changed while I wasn’t looking.
    I just wanted to thank Mr.Pepijn for restoring my mental sanity.
    I wish everyone a good night.

  3. My comment is as relevant to the telescope as 90 % of the comments of Corda
    and Smut Clyde….as you can see seeking alpha was convinced by the MagneGas attorneys to stick to statistics rather than invent stories to make money for those who illegally short the stock. The SEC says that shorting the stock is illegal and investigates those who spread lies and rumors in order to profit from plunging values. You said that MagneGas is a pyramid scheme and that Santilli, the founder of MagneGas acts with “continuing stupidity” so…

    1. You need to improve your reading skills. In ‘Finding JV Kadeisvili – or Mailing with Ruggero M Santilli’ I wrote: “It looks like a pyramid scheme” (‘looks like’, not ‘is’). From the context I belief it’s quite clear what I meant by that, namely that Magnegas didn’t look like a sustainable firm at the time of writing considering the accumulated losses and without the prospect of compensating those losses with future gains because of the dubious way in which their product (the original Magnegas) was promoted as a gas mixture containing molecules with properties that are not known to mainstream science.
      I also wrote: “Magnegas’ main business doesn’t seem to be selling gas but attracting small investors, who fall for the promise of Magnegas being a new miracle gas.” If you follow the link to the Wikipedia article which is in my article under “pyramid scheme” you’ll find that the description fits reasonably well.
      And in the most recent update (Nov. 2014) to the article I wrote: “It still doesn’t look like a financially solid company to me and they seem to be struggling to keep the MNGA stock listed on the NASDAQ, but I am not an expert on stockmarket operations.” I really don’t care about Magnegas as a company, as nowadays they don’t seem to promote their product to openly with claims that conflict with mainstream science.

      1. Magnegas’ main business doesn’t seem to be selling gas but attracting small investors

        That can be characteristic of a Ponzi scheme as well as of a pyramid scheme. And Magnegas lacks the multi-level-marketing feature of pyramids.

        1. I know now that ‘pyramid scheme’ is not the best description, but I doubt that the Santilli clan likes the more appropriate names better. The way some hedge funds are involved with these penny stocks looks very dubious to me, but I don’t find it interesting enough to go to the bottom of these things myself.

  4. After informing various colleagues (included some of Mr. Santilli’s running dogs like Mr. Svetlin Georgiev of the Sorbona University) that the paper correcting Mr. Santilli’s mistakes in gravitation and cosmology has been published on-line by the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, I received the following message by Mr. Santilli’s slave who uses the name of “Pamela Fleming”:

    “This is a paid non-refereed internet bash and not a serious publication. In any case, Corda’s dishonesty is confirmed by the fact that he continues to ignore the historical evdience of the curvature of light bending due to the refraction of light in the sun chromosphere under which no actual curvature of space can possibly exist. he just states with immense arrogance “that’s wrong:” without any technical dismissal, thus dreaming that this is serous physics. It is in reality politics to maintain Einstein theories which is very damaging to the Jewish community, including the good Jews (who are the majority).
    Pamela Fleming”.

    As usual “Mr. Fleming” slanders and insults, but, concerning the points that she raised:

    1) Actually, International Journal of Theoretical Physics is a serious, historical and refereed journal having 55 volumes, 561 issues and a current impact factor of 1.184, see here for details http://link.springer.com/journal/10773.
    2) General relativity admits the existence of the curvature of the 4-dimensional space-time, not only of the 3-dimensional space. In any case, on one hand, we have ultimately shown Santilli’s mistake on the non-existence of curvature in pages 6, 7 and 8 of the paper based on the power of the equivalence principle. On the other hand, in page 5 we have shown that the curvature of light bending cannot be due to the
    refraction of light in the Sun chromosphere because the entire sky, and not only the portion near the Sun chromosphere, is slightly distorted due to the gravitational deflection of light caused by the Sun (except the anti-Sun direction). This effect has been observed by the European Space Agency astrometric satellite Hipparcos and the results agree with the prevision of the general theory of relativity at the level of 0.3 percent. Clearly, as the Newtonian value is exactly half of the Einsteinian one, a precision of the level of 0.3 percent rules out in an ultimate way the possibility to consider the gravitational bending of the light in a purely Newtonian context. Thus, Mr. Santilli’s mistake is confirmed by the observations in an ultimate way and both of Mr. Santilli and Mrs. Fleming merely speak nonsense.

      1. Two possibilities:

        1) You have to write a scientific paper claiming that Santilli made some mistake.
        2) You have to claim in a personal blogthat Santilli made some mistake.

        You will be immediately accused by “Luca Petronio” to be “corrupted by organized interests on Einstein”….

      1. I noticed that a couple of weeks ago. It’s not clear though what is meant by these ‘pending legal actions’. Is it because someone is sueing Santilli, or is he planning some legal action himself and thinks this libelous website could very well be brought up in court and damage his change of success?

  5. Just to inform the readers of the comments:

    Already in March I’ve started diverting comments from ‘Frank Stone’ to spam, so that they will not appear. Reason for this is that the same IP-address was used by ‘Luca Petronio’ to utter all kind of anti-semitic language which I will defintely not allow in the comments. But as the the readers of this post and my longer article on Santilli will know, all these different persona’s are in fact Ruggero, his wife Carla or someone else of the Santilli clan. I will just treat all comments which are easy to track back to the Santilli clan in the same way. Up to today I blocked 2 comments by ‘Luca Petronio’ and 9 from ‘Frank Stone’.

    Another reason to block those comments is that they don’t contain anything interesting, just complaints, mainly towards me and also in the direction of Christian Corda. That there is no proof that Corda’s paper is accepted for publication. Well we can just wait and see, can’t we? The cosmos won’t go anywhere in the mean time.
    Of course Santilli can do all nagging and complaining on his own websites, I see no reason to allow that here. Well, if it gets realy pathetic I might let some comments slip through 😉

    If Santilli would start apologizing for all the insults he ever sent to people via e-mail, remove the anti-semitic language from his website scientificethics[dot]org, and would admit he published under false identities in scientific journals or show some convincing evidence otherwise, like a birth certificate or passport of “Jerdsay Kadeisvili”, maybe than I will allow his comments on my blog.

    In the mean time the readers who are interested in the economic activities of the Santilli clan will probably enjoy reading an article which analyzes their business model. Of course Magnegas was not pleased with this revealing article and has announced in February that they have found out who is the anonymous author and will pursue this individual “to the fullest extent of the law.” I am not aware of any detailed comments by Magnegas on the contents of the article however.

    1. the readers who are interested in the economic activities of the Santilli clan will probably enjoy reading

      Those readers will further profit by extending their reading list to include the entwined activities of Francesco Fucilla and his family.
      It is a complicated ball of hair, but Italian journalist Sylvie Coyaud managed to disentangle the various threads into admirably lucid sequence, and then SOTT (of all places) translated Coyaud’s report into English:

      https://www.sott.net/article/251809-Francesco-Fucilla-Impossible-science-doesnt-exist

    2. Santilli argues that black is white… Here I forward the acceptance email of our paper in International Journal of Theoretical Physics. We have sent the final proofs, thus, the paper will be published soon.

      > Da: em.ijtp.f.4b4bdb.55d16ce2@editorialmanager.com per conto di H. Saller
      > Inviato: venerdì 20 maggio 2016 11.09.27
      > A: Christian Corda
      > Oggetto: IJTP-D-15-01205R1 – accepted for publication
      >
      > Dear Dr. Corda,
      >
      > We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript,
      > “Confusion in cosmology and gravitation”, has been accepted for publication in
      > International Journal of Theoretical Physics.
      >
      > You will receive an e-mail from Springer in due course with regards to the following items:
      >
      > 1. Offprints
      > 2. Colour figures
      > 3. Transfer of Copyright
      >
      > Please remember to quote the manuscript number,
      > IJTP-D-15-01205R1, whenever inquiring about your manuscript.
      >
      > With best regards,
      > Springer Journals Editorial Office
      > International Journal of Theoretical Physics
      >
      >
      > Reviewer #1: The paper can be accepted in the current form.
      >
      >
      > Reviewer #2: No comment is needed.

      1. I think it is positive that a journal finally brings to the fore that there is disagreement on some fundamental issues in physics. It will open the door to people who also disagree but do not know where to go and how to formulate the disagreements! Positive news. Corda, relax an be happy and productive.

        1. Actually, I have no doubts that “Frank Stone” is another alias of Santilli. Thus:
          Dear Ruggero,
          Actually, I am both relaxed and happy ans productive. I hope the same for you. I regret, but my paper does not bring to the fore that there is disagreement on some fundamental issues in physics. Instead, it brings to the fore that you made very elementary mistakes in cosmology and gravitation. I attempted various time in last years to explain you that the Big-Bang is NOT a cosmic explosion, I attempted various time to explain you that you do not understand how general relativity works, but you NEVER wanted to try to understand these issues based on your insistence that admitting the correctness of general relativity and of the big bang theory implies “being intentionally orchestrated to serve organized interests on Einstein,” or similar accusations. In order to understand general relativity and its cosmological applications, one must have a majestic knowledge of differential geometry through years and years of studies. I regret, but this is not your case. You indeed confuse tensors with pseudo-tensors when analyzing the Freud Identity and you claim that “the radial Hubble law and the expansion of the universe imply the Earth at the center of the universe”. These are very elementary mistakes, not “serious science”. Only people like Anderson, Fleming and Johnson, who can be good collaborators but have null technical knowledge of these issues and think that you are the Messiah of science, can claim that you are correct. You are completely wrong instead and you ridicule yourself within the Scientific Community. I regret, but this is the truth. Please, give me a SOLE name of a serious scientist who agrees with you on these issues. I well remember that not only myself, but also Leong Ying, Peter Rowlands, Jorge Ovalle, Herman Mosquera Cuesta and other researchers who attended to your conferences in last years attempted various times to clarify these issues to you, but it was as we were speaking with a wall. A lot of your friends agree with me on these issues, but they have fear to speak. I have no fear instead, because I work on these issues from almost 20 years. I am a physicist of gravitation, while you are an applied mathematician. You cannot pretend to be a good scientist in all the fields of science. Science is too much complicated today and there is no room for knowing-all scientists.
          Thus, as various colleagues insisted to connect such wrong claims in gravitation and cosmology to my name, I was forced to clarify my position. This is a pity. In fact, your knowledge and understanding of general relativity and modern cosmology are very low and your wrong claims at elementary level on these issues have the only result to generate a strong lack of credibility on the rest of your research work. This is your biggest problem, and you are the worst enemy of yourself. I wrote explicitly in the web which is my position on your wrong claims at elementary level in gravitation and cosmology to preserve my reputation and my career. If you do not understand general relativity and standard cosmology is not my guilty. You always claim the necessity of “freedom and democracy in science”. Thus, it is my right to openly claim that, in gravitation and cosmology you are completely wrong at a very basic level. You should accept criticisms and also a serious scientific discussion rather than insulting myself and other people.
          Best wishes.

        2. Thank you, but I am not Santilli…anyway when your article is published, they will see that you disagree with Santilli and vice versa so they will know that not everybody agrees on some fundamental ideas. You must not be very busy if you have time to write such a long letter saying what you have said many times on this blog.

        3. Yes, “Frank”, you are not Santilli. And I am spider-man…
          On one hand, you are correct, my long letter was a mere copy and past of my previous posts in this blog. Thus, I wrote it in a couple of minutes.
          On the other hand, you are wrong. People will not see that I disagree with Santilli (i.e. you) and vice versa so they will know that not everybody agrees on some fundamental ideas. Science must be rigorous. If you claim that 2+2=5 and I claim that 2+2=4 instead, we are not disagreeing. Merely, you are wrong and I am correct. The same works for tensors and pseudo-tensors. A pseudo-tensor CANNOT be the source of the gravitational field, which is a true tensor. Again, claiming that “Hubble’s law establishes that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all directions in space. Consequently, the conjectures on the expansion of the universe, the acceleration of the expansion and the big bang necessarily imply a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe” is a very elementary mistake, because in modern cosmology the universe is seen as a space-like hyper-surface having NO center. This is known at the popularizing level, if not a high school level. Again, claiming that the inertial mass is macroscopically different from the gravitational mass is a big mistake, because experiments shows that the inertial mass is equal to the gravitational mass with a precision of 10^-14. These are NOT disagreements between myself and Santilli (i.e. you) . These are very elementary mistakes by Santilli (i.e. you) instead. If Santilli (i.e. you) did not study these issues is not my guilty.
          Best wishes.

  6. I did a quick check online and found he was a professor at Harvard and published a number of books, one of them being An isodual theory of matter… so it seems he has a number of degrees and is not prima facie, stupid. Now I wouldn’t mind a more serious refutation of his views…

    1. Almost all of his articles and books are self published, don’t think it’s worth the effort to analyse in detail all what is in those considering the quality of the stuff he is pushing the most. But you can find debunks of some of his ideas in the International Skeptics forum for instance http://www.internationalskeptics.com

    2. found he was a professor at Harvard
      I have only seen evidence that Santilli was a post-doc in the Maths department there, with sponsorship from the US Department of Energy, having convinced the DoE that his unusual ideas on burning water might work out. In the absence of results, Harvard gave him the boot in 1981.
      Obviously they couldn’t have evicted Santilli if he had been an actual tenured professor. However, if there is evidence that he was on the faculty, I am happy to be corrected.

    3. This paper has been accepted for publication in International Journal of Theoretical Physics
      http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0206
      It corrects Mr. Santilli’s elementary mistakes in gravitation and cosmology. Some of them can be corrected even by high school students…

    1. Hilarious indeed! All the text that is not about Santilli seems to be copied from the Nobelprize website or Wikipedia.

      1. Surely. The contact of Mr. “Joseph Feldman” is 3708 Evergreen Drive, Texarkana, AR. 71854. By inserting this in Google, one finds a Company of Website Design, see http://www.texarkanaweb.com/texarkana-website-hosting.html. Thus, it is clear what happened. Mr. Santilli and/or his running dogs “Fleming” and “Anderson” paid the Company of Website Design for creating such a fake “Nobel nomination”. Maybe that some ingenuous guy can think it is real…

  7. I had two pictures that look like theirs. They where taken in the eighties with a polaroid camera.They had the beads of yellow with the hump in the middle that reminded me of the shape of a mouse(rosary beads).This was in the dark after a outdoor mass on a New York city island.I also saw a picture develope from the same kind of camera it had solid yelloe blue and red lines across the picture.

  8. “Probably” I do not understand ? and i do not see your argument. It looks like your a skeptic ,,, well trolling ! Put a proper argument forward. Explain, what is being captured from his telescopes.

    1. It’s probably random noise, dust and broken pixels on the CCD, it’s no wonder with exposure times of 15 sec at ISO 1600 that you will see this stuff when you zoom in down to pixel levels. But you can read about that in a manual on astrophotography, the pictures in the articles don’t show something extra-ordinary.
      Other pictures clearly show that with the amateurish equipment Santilli uses, he isn’t even able to hold the camera stable because of ‘small fluctuations due to wind’. If he wants to impress scientists, he has to show something more convincing.

  9. Dang. I love when smart people argue
    Even when they are wrong they can try to sound correct about something else.
    Hell, you make people money for their families. You win.
    Sorry Pepijn but if you don’t make money it don’t make sense…

    1. Dang, I love it when not-so-smart people reply.
      Even when they should know that they are wrong,
      they try to sound correct about something.
      Hell, they scam money from people’s families. They are losers.
      Sorry Dana, if you do not have knowledge you don’t make sense .

    1. ‘Check out’!? Don’t you have link for a recent course at Harvard? And I’m not interested in something from before 1980-something when Santilli was still in the neighborhood over there.

  10. To an intelligent lay person, your article isn’t very convincing. I’m not saying I don’t believe that the science done by Mr. Santilli and his company is poor. It very well could be, but your article does little to show it. Instead, you offer conjecture for why you outright dismiss the possibility of his telescope (which is presumably being used by someone). Additionally, your article reads very arrogantly like you dismiss what they have to say out of hand. Perhaps a better way is rational argument than name calling like “stupid,” “mad professor,” or “cunning scams.”

    But I’m sure from seeing above that you’ll post a snarky comment about how I’m being paid. I’m not, nor do I know any of these people.

    1. If you have read the other article on my website on Santilli I linked to in this blog post, you’ll probably understand why I will not bother to explain in more detail why this telescope is nonsense. I blocked ‘Frank Stone’ from further commenting, because I have good reasons to think, he/she is either Santilli himself, his wife Carla or someone real close to them and who is fully aware of their ‘scientific’ business and threatening e-mails which feature anti-semitic language. I will not allow that here on my own site.

    2. Back in his hay-day Santilli was legit. Not so much now. After his Relativity BS and after I read “Apparent Detection via New Telescopes with Concave Lenses of Otherwise Invisible Terrestrial Entities” I was certain he’d busted a gasket. Pretty soon, I’m sure he’ll start barking about a flat Earth.

  11. The American Journal Of Modern Physics is not included on the Beals List link you provided. If you’re going to discredit someone for lack of accuracy, please try to not be innacurate yourself…

  12. Last year the Tampa Bay Times published an article (April 16, 2015) about an industrial explosion resulting in one death at Santilli’s company, MagneGas. The article notes that the company had steadily been losing money; shares were so low NASDAQ had threatened to de-list the stock earlier in the year. Hence telescopes? Thunder Energies is just down the street from MagneGas in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/breaking-explosion-at-tarpon-springs-gas-facility-leaves-one-injured/2225829

    1. What have the people on this blog done in their lives to contribute to society?
      Magnegas has supported 30 – 50 families for the last 15 years…that is has created jobs requiring payroll, insurance, medical and retirement benefits, dignity of employment. Magnegas has injected million of dollars in the local economy…what have you done?
      Debunking and skepticism are appropriate activities. Insult and libel are not.
      Do you know the fable of the fox and the grapes?

      1. So ‘Frank’, can you tell us what your function is at Thunder Energies Corp.? Or at the other Santilli companies or phoney organisations?

        Actually, never mind answering: you’re using the same IP-address as ‘Luca Petronio’ which left all kind of anti-semitic ramblings on this site and the e-mail address was also in use by Carla Santilli and ‘Pamela Fleming’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *