View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 03 Jul 2010, 03:58

Edx wrote:You should watch this:

Richard Gage 9/11 - Explosive Contradictions


Conclusion:
Richard Gage does not understand, thermite,
Richard Gage does not understand explosives,
Richard Gage does not understand sound.

Oh my God I just peed my pants laughing. This is "bombshell" proof that Mr. Gage doesn't have a clue. You just keep your nose right up his ass though Winston...
I've tried to be tight lipped about this, but honestly, you guys don't have a chance in hell of even sounding respectable at that debate. Sorry.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 09 Jul 2010, 04:10

I've just been reading this thread Scepcop and I'm glad you have been consulting Richard Gage for this forthcoming debate. .

What I would advise Richard Gage to concentrate on, is not proving that the WTC7 was a demolition, but more on disproving that the official hypothesis that the NIST gave. This would put their opponents on the back foot and require them to defend their positions which will highlight that they are prepared to believe that a single column can cause a building such as the WTC 7 to collapse at freefall speeds for at least 2 second, as the NIST now admit but have never explained how or why?

After reading this PDF that Dave Thomas as created for his explanation of the conspiracy, I honestly do not think Gage has anything to worry about.
http://www.nmsr.org/911_may2010.pdf

I have to laugh at the title of New Mexicans For Science and Reason, not because they are new mexicans, because of their science and reason on page 16 of the PDF.... :lol:
“Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes”
There are many causes of loud noises besides explosions: car crashes, rockslides, etc.

I'm not seeing any science for what they think 100+ first responders heard but definetly lots of reasons of the cognitive side...lol

To be honest, judging by the PDF, I don't think Gage has too much to worry about other than the snidey tactics which they'll employ, like the cardboard box demonstration which he used as a simple comparitor to demonstrate a valid point about the absurdity of the official collapse theory! lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 02:09

Apparently, the JREF forum is discussing this debate as well, after having learned about it from my post on the Zeitgeist forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=179138
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 02:18

Edx,
I've been over that many times before. It doesn't matter if the steel softened or weakened. There is no way that fire or the top few floors could generate enough force to pulverize the whole building at near free fall speed, or at least at the speed that it fell. No way around it. You have to cut the columns and the resistance below the WTC in order to do that. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said that on the day of the attack on the news, that you have to get at the "under infrastructure of a building to bring it down". I'm sure you've heard those clips where they say that. Every truther film shows those clips, which are all over YouTube. It's common sense.

So, even if the steel weakened, it CANNOT collapse the whole building at that speed. CANNOT. IMPOSSIBLE. You guys have never explained it or accounted for it. No way around it. You are missing a huge amount of force that you are not accounting for.

So please quit bringing up debunked and outdated arguments. We are tired of hearing such old arguments that do not address the crux of the issue.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 02:23

ProfWag,
Your ridicule of that video proves nothing.

Gage was making a great point there, that for one to assume that an 80,000 ton structure (or how many tons it was) to collapse like air is totally ludicrous. Yet you'd have to believe that to buy the official story. He was showing you how ridiculous YOU are ProfWag. Therefore, the JOKE'S ON YOU!
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 02:41

Some updates on this debate:

- First, the host of the Coast to Coast program, Ian, has decided not to make this a team debate, because he feels that the listeners would get confused if too many different people talk about who is who, and might turn off the radio. So it will basically be a one on one debate between Richard Gage and Dave Thomas, with people calling in during the third hour.

So much for teams. We actually had an experienced structural engineer on our team too, with a lot of credentials.

- Second, Dave Thomas came up with a Physicist and Firefighter for his team, but it's a moot point now that it will be a one on one debate. But in any case, here is Dave Thomas' draft of his main arguments that he sent us. Any suggestions on how to counter them?

Dave Thomas:
We will be ready and willing to provide cogent summaries and
interesting discussions on any of the following topics, and others not
listed:
(1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at
every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum
collapse.
(2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads;
Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
(3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition? Wires, melted beam
puddles,
explosion sounds, thermite reaction products, etc?
(4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially
on vertical beams.
(5) Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite
was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must
have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
(6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes
hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer"
truthers deny that planes hit the towers/pentagon.
I will be in the field in Montana, doing a big seismology experiment,
from July 12th-24th. I may not have internet access during this
interval, but will be able to tend to last minute details after the
24th.

Regards, Dave

Dave Thomas
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 10 Jul 2010, 06:57

Hi Scecop :)

Is that it?? lol

Is this man serious, most of them are not even points, just strawman arguments. lol

Lets go through them and point out what is wrong with his question, the lack of logical thought and the ridiculousness of his points.
Dave Thomas wrote:(1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum collapse.
For a start, WTC 1 & 2 did not collapse in free fall. The phrase often used is "Near free fall" speeds. Now the term "near" is subjective so of course, how near to free fall depends on the individual judging how close it is in relation to it. It becomes a semantic game for the debunker because evidently the collapses show there was some resistance otherwise it would have fell at free fall speeds. The reason the term near is used is because the NIST in their own words that they "estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."

So the official time are the ones quoted by the NIST. I don't use the term for the collapses of the WTC 1 & 2 because WTC 1 took more like 16 seconds which isn't near, but still pretty fast considering the amount of resistance underneath of the failure points.

But when we move on to WTC7, then that statement isn't exactly true. As the NIST finally admitted that the WTC 7 did collapse in "free fall" for about 2 seconds, so there clearly wasn't resistance every step. So therefore his argument in the case of the "towers" as in all 3 towers is not true.

What he is doing here is playing semantics rather than debate the fact that WTC 7 did actually collapse at free fall speeds and drag Gage into debate about how the collapse of the WTC 1 took 16 seconds and that is not freefall or even near. While I would have to agree that it is not near, some truthers uses this and Gage should too in the case of WTC 1 & 2 because it drags the argument away of whether the towers were demolished to whether there was resistance or not which there was. What this does is avoid talking about how much resistance there should have been when you consider that the upper block of 92-100 had to smash its way through the lower block of floors 91-0 and whether it is possible for the smaller mass to destroy the larger mass.
Dave Thomas wrote:(2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads; Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
WOW! Ain't he the smart guy......lol He would have a point if he could point to an example of a truther who uses static loads and then then argue that these are not many times the equivalent of dynamic loads. I don't think Gage has ever made that argument but I don't really know much about Gages opinions.

Hilariously on top of the strawman or as I like to call it an argument from his imagination, he goes on to qualify it with truther using make believe physics.

Well where is his physics to show that the towers collapsed the way they did? Let me guess, he's a NISTIAN and even though they have no theory of how it collapsed other than it was "inevitable". How scientific is that?? lol

Of course the Bazant document is usually trotted out as the physics behind the collapse! lol Even though it is an update of a theory created 2 days after the attacks before any of the evidence was available and even in his latest addition, the physics is nothing more than make believe and doesn't match the visual evidence of the collapse.
Dave Thomas wrote:(3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition?
The NIST didn't test for explosives see their FAQs. So there is no evidence for controlled demolition but it cannot be ruled out because it was never tested for.
Dave Thomas wrote:Wires,
Has this guy never heard of wireless technology and if he came up with the crap that wireless can't be used because other devices might trigger it off, then it shows us how little he thought about the possibility and that its relatively easy to send a secure signal wirelessly to a device.
Dave Thomas wrote:melted beam puddles,
What he does he think the people at GZ were talking about when they found pools of molten metal.
Dave Thomas wrote:explosion sounds,
Only god knows how many testimonies from eyewitness, news reports of explosion sounds. His denial of anything which pisses on what he BELIEVES is showing as we know the explosion sounds are cars crashing according to him......lol
Dave Thomas wrote:thermite reaction products, etc?
Thermite was never tested for, so if it's not tested for scientifically, then how can he determine it was not there!!

All these questions neglect that the debris was shipped out from GZ very quickly and that not much was saved for investigator. This outraged many victims' families who believe it should have been examined more thoroughly and even fire investigators had said that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because they did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. Also they still haven't found all the remains from the people who died in the towers, so what does he expect there to be??

Dave Thomas wrote:(4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
While it might be difficult, it is not impossible and has Gage or Dave ever consider that thermite might have been used as an heat weakening agent as opposed to cutting the beams?
Dave Thomas wrote:Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
Why is it contradictory?? Can't both methods have been used to destroy the towers?

Of course not, he requires that position to be absurd.

Thermite might have been used as opposed to conventional explosives to make it look less like a demolition and more like a natural collapse. If I were to task you with bringing down a building but I want you try and make it look like it fell on it's own accord so to speak, then using explosives wouldn't be a choice, you might need a few to help it to initiate or progress but you would have to use unconventional methods.

Now this argument from debunkers comes from a strange delusion and contradictory argument. I know Dave doesn't make this argument, but Gage should ask him how much explosive Dave thinks would be needed to bring down the towers? Naturally Dave would suggest hundreds of tons, planted all over the place, up and down the building etc etc...as do most debunkers, but he's fallen for my twoofer twap! lol

What I would explain to him is that in his position all that is needed to bring down the WTC down is some damage to less than 5% of the overall structure and add some fires and he believes that would make the building collapse with out the need for any explosives. So if that is the case, then all that is needed is some explosive devices to cut those same damaged columns that he believes the plane did and add thermite to heat weaken the same areas the jet fuel did and it should still collapse. Therefore it shouldn't requires hundreds of tons, planted all over the place, up and down the building etc etc.

His position requires no explosives for the towers to collapse, just damage and heat weakening in the affected area of initiation, yet his position changes because it would require explosives all over the place, not just in the affected area of initiation.

That would be contradictory. I would also ask why he thinks demolition companies rig buildings from top to floor traditionally when they could use the NWO way (pardon the pun!) of demolishing buildings. Just damage a small area, set fire and bingo! lol
Dave Thomas wrote:(6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer"
[/quote][/quote]Now this just highlights the whole contradictory nature of Dave. I do not think Gage thinks that the no plane hit the towers so what he is doing is taken a position most truthers think is absurd and applying it to Gage, it's smacks of desperation.

However on the Pentagon front, he claims there are thousands/hundreds to the airplanes which he believes is true, yet when there are thousands/hundreds (I don't think there are thousands! lol) of people who heard explosions, they were wrong.

You see on one hand debunkers will claim that people memories are faulty and that no one heard or reported explosives and if they did, it was probably something else, yet the people who claimed to have seen the plane hit the Pentagon do not have faulty memories and that the plane was not AA77 but something else.

Of course, CIT have spoken to the eyewitnesses and I think only one of them said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon but he also saw the plane in a different position to where it is official claimed and so does every eyewitness they spoke to.

What he is doing is assuming there are thousands and hundreds who witnessed it entering the building but the truth is, the amount of people who claimed to have ACTUALLY see the plane hitting is nowhere near that figure.

Now did AA77 hit the Pentagon? It is possible but seeing as there is no direct evidence to identify what hit the Pentagon, then it's still open to speculation. The videos that have been released don't show a plane, there are no records of serial number or part numbers which would identify the pane as AA77 and the FDR doesn't match the official flight path and has missing data of the last few seconds before impact. Gage would be wise to talk about the direct and exact impact that the plane hit the pentagon, imagine flying at 500+mph and smashing into the Pentagon and hitting it without any signs of damage to the grass or disturbing the coils that were in front of the building. It would have taken demon like piloting skills from someone who apparently couldn't fly a cessna and while the odd debunker would say I can do that in a simulation, well I can drive an F1 car in a simulator and beat the best F1 drivers but in real life, I'd probably be lapped a couple of times before I could do one.

Dave might invoke the DNA evidence, now it would be natural to assume that because the DNA of the passengers was found, that proves it must have been AA77 but it still doesn't actually prove or identify the aircraft was AA77. All it proves is that the DNA belongs to the passengers of AA77.

To be honest, Daves argument are formulated quite simply in that he generalises people whom he declares as truthers, who like many other social groups are generalised even though groups of people have many different ideas and opinions even if they have a similar idea that identifies the group and goes for the more ridiculous claims, creates strawman arguments.

What Gage has to do is highlight that these arguments aren't really worth the merit that Dave puts on, this NMSR is something of joke seeing as the presentation that I linked offered very little in the way of science but lots of reasons and that although there are many legitimate questions surrounding alternative collapse theories, they are a much better match for the anomalies than the official story. I mean how else do you explain 2 seconds of free fall in a structure that wasn't even hit by a plane? Explain that a single column failed and caused a 2 second free fall of the building?? lol

Gage really hasn't nothing to worry about with this guy.

I think the firefigther would be there as another form of attack by saying that truthers implicate the FDNY in to there mad conspiracies and therefore Gage must also support this position and give his account of how he heard nothing which doesn't prove that other people heard or witnessed nothing. So I'm kind of glad that it's a one to one but not sure of the role of the physicist.

Well thats my 2pence worth.

Cheers

Stundie :)
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jul 2010, 17:42

Thanks Stundie, I will forward your recommendations and suggestions, in both posts, to Richard Gage and his team.

Hope they will make good use of them.

Winston
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 11 Jul 2010, 00:44

Scepcop wrote:Edx,
I've been over that many times before.


Really? I remember debating you over and over and disproving you over and over and you just repeating the same thing after a few weeks as if I never said anything and never replied to any of my points.

It doesn't matter if the steel softened or weakened.


Winston, if you're going to make factual statements that steel only softens at 2700F then you are - factually - incorrect.

Why can't you just admit you are wrong and deal with the facts of how hot steel really has to be to soften and weaken? But if you are saying that the truth movement doesn't care about what's factually accurate I'll certainly agree with you.

There is no way that fire or the top few floors could generate enough force to pulverize the whole building


Once again unspecific...

What force is it that caused these buildings to be "pulverised" Winston?



at near free fall speed, or at least at the speed that it fell.


I love the goal post moving you do in advance of my response because you really don't know what speed it fell, don't really care and really don't know what speed would be too fast, you just know that its "too fast". Maybe you could come up with with a more specific figure of just how fast it should have fallen that would have been slow enough to be natural to you guys.

Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said that on the day of the attack on the news, that you have to get at the "under infrastructure of a building to bring it down".


Because they are experts in structural engineering or demolition and not just journalists? I had no idea Winston!

So, even if the steel weakened, it CANNOT collapse the whole building at that speed. CANNOT. IMPOSSIBLE. You guys have never explained it or accounted for it. No way around it. You are missing a huge amount of force that you are not accounting for.


There's plenty of technical papers dealing with it, but you are not interested in anything like that so maybe I can try explaining it to you from one lay person to another.

I'm going to need you to first explain what you see in those Verinage demolitions that I asked you about above.

So please quit bringing up debunked and outdated arguments. .


Funny that you can accuse me of that seeing as how you were the one that made specific factual errors.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 11 Jul 2010, 02:04

Edx wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Edx,
I've been over that many times before.


Really? I remember debating you over and over and disproving you over and over and you just repeating the same thing after a few weeks as if I never said anything and never replied to any of my points.

It doesn't matter if the steel softened or weakened.


Winston, if you're going to make factual statements that steel only softens at 2700F then you are - factually - incorrect.

Why can't you just admit you are wrong and deal with the facts of how hot steel really has to be to soften and weaken? But if you are saying that the truth movement doesn't care about what's factually accurate I'll certainly agree with you.

There is no way that fire or the top few floors could generate enough force to pulverize the whole building


Once again unspecific...

What force is it that caused these buildings to be "pulverised" Winston?



at near free fall speed, or at least at the speed that it fell.


I love the goal post moving you do in advance of my response because you really don't know what speed it fell, don't really care and really don't know what speed would be too fast, you just know that its "too fast". Maybe you could come up with with a more specific figure of just how fast it should have fallen that would have been slow enough to be natural to you guys.

Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said that on the day of the attack on the news, that you have to get at the "under infrastructure of a building to bring it down".


Because they are experts in structural engineering or demolition and not just journalists? I had no idea Winston!

So, even if the steel weakened, it CANNOT collapse the whole building at that speed. CANNOT. IMPOSSIBLE. You guys have never explained it or accounted for it. No way around it. You are missing a huge amount of force that you are not accounting for.


There's plenty of technical papers dealing with it, but you are not interested in anything like that so maybe I can try explaining it to you from one lay person to another.

I'm going to need you to first explain what you see in those Verinage demolitions that I asked you about above.

So please quit bringing up debunked and outdated arguments. .


Funny that you can accuse me of that seeing as how you were the one that made specific factual errors.


You know W ain't a gonna listen to any naysayer. He's made up his mind that is was the Us government not a bunch of Islamic terrorists that conspired.
What a novel way of razing a building.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 11 Jul 2010, 04:00

I'm not really directing this response specifically to stundie, as I believe he is someone who posts or used to post at the JREF and I really don't think there's any way to get through to him. But I want to respond to specific points.

stundie wrote:For a start, WTC 1 & 2 did not collapse in free fall. The phrase often used is "Near free fall" speeds. Now the term "near" is subjective so of course, how near to free fall depends on the individual judging how close it is in relation to it. It becomes a semantic game for the debunker because evidently the collapses show there was some resistance otherwise it would have fell at free fall speeds. The reason the term near is used is because the NIST in their own words that they "estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."


Is it really implied with this that truthers never really said that the towers collapsed in free fall? That they never really said 9 and 11 seconds? Well of course they did, then when it was shown that they weren't free fall truthers started saying "Oh I mean near free fall" .

But just how much is near free fall and just how much is "too fast"? Truther's can't tell you, they just KNOW it was "too fast" but can't tell you why.

And just so we're clear, NIST clearly says approximately 9 and 11 seconds for the first exterior panels to strike the ground. That in no way implies that the entire building fell at free fall. NIST did say at one point "near free fall" as well, however when they say "near" its simply because 15 and 21 seconds aren't that far apart from 9 and 11 seconds. The point being that when truthers say it its because they seem to think that the collapse times are very important to show that explosives were pushing material out of the way, so any mention of free fall is very important to them, rather than just a throw away comment someone else might use.

So the official time are the ones quoted by the NIST.


As pointed out above its not an official time of the collapse of the two buildings, its of portions of the buildings. You can even watch these exterior panels yourself falling faster than the building. I don't think they even gave a total collapse time.

I don't use the term for the collapses of the WTC 1 & 2 because WTC 1 took more like 16 seconds which isn't near,


See this is good, but here comes the arbitrary goal post manoeuvre....

but still pretty fast


... there we are.

But when we move on to WTC7, then that statement isn't exactly true. As the NIST finally admitted that the WTC 7 did collapse in "free fall" for about 2 seconds, so there clearly wasn't resistance every step. So therefore his argument in the case of the "towers" as in all 3 towers is not true.


What truthers need to understand is that none of the collapses were free fall.

First truthers said WTC1+2 were 100% free fall (some even said "faster than free fall", I have no idea how they figured that out). Then they move onto Building 7 and say that was 100% free fall in 6.5 seconds. Then they are shown that WTC7 was not free fall either and that there was also a whole series of massive internal collapses as well. Then one of their own David Chandler has calculated there was 2.25 seconds of free fall in the entire collapse and yet he somehow tries to spin this as some kind of dishonesty by NIST? How about admit the fact that for years AE911 were saying the entire collapse took 6.5 seconds in free fall? No they wouldn't want to do that they might look bad, so they had to try and pretend they were right all along. As I said above the whole reason for saying that it was free fall is to claim that explosives were pushing material out of the way (they also ignore the fact that real demolitions also aren't free fall but that's another point), but just like before the collapse times of WTC7 shows significant resistance.

So about this 2.25 seconds then, the reasons Gage's troupe have such a hard time here is that they ignore the internal collapses. For years truthers would and still do chop out the dramatic east mechanical penthouse collapse, how do they think they can accurately evaluate an event like this by ignoring half of it? The 2.25 seconds was not because there was nothing underneath on those floors, it was because the internal collapses pulled in and downwards on the exterior of the building. If you find this difficult to imagine, maybe try and think of a car being tied to another car and pushing one off a cliff.


What he is doing here is playing semantics rather than debate the fact that WTC 7 did actually collapse at free fall speeds


Except, you know, it didn't. Saying there was a small portion that was free fall doesn't mean you can legitimately say it "collapsed at free fall speeds".

If I jump out an plane and parachute down I am not travelling at free fall speeds, but lets say my chute breaks near the ground and I break by legs and survive. It would be ridiculous, then, to say that I "jumped out a plane and hit the ground at free fall speeds", but this is exactly the kind of logic Gage and co. are using with WTC7.

What this does is avoid talking about how much resistance there should have been when you consider that the upper block of 92-100 had to smash its way through the lower block of floors 91-0 and whether it is possible for the smaller mass to destroy the larger mass
.

I do hope you are not a Heiwa (Anders Bjorkman) fan, who thinks that a smaller upper block can never destroy the lower block of a building. When you show him Verinage demolitions that don't use explosives, he insists that the lower part is destroyed so that it can allow the top to crush it, however he provides no evidence for this and even the patent states that it is safer than explosives as it doesn't require the pre weakening of the structure.

Hilariously on top of the strawman or as I like to call it an argument from his imagination, he goes on to qualify it with truther using make believe physics.


In addition to the above I should also point out that AE911 promoted Heiwa on their website as Petitioner of the Month and promoted his nutty "papers".

Speaking of make believe physics, Gage seems to think that explosives can be both quiet and intense. Now I'd call that make believe physics as well. *See below.

Has this guy never heard of wireless technology and if he came up with the crap that wireless can't be used because other devices might trigger it off, then it shows us how little he thought about the possibility and that its relatively easy to send a secure signal wirelessly to a device.


What kind of demolition works that way? There's a reason why they don't do this, its because there's all kinds of interference. But then this is a stupid question since nano thermite is apparently a significant component in the truther theory, when no thermite has ever been used in a demolition and they seem to think that's reasonable...


Dave Thomas wrote:melted beam puddles,
What he does he think the people at GZ were talking about when they found pools of molten metal.


Not all metal is steel, does it really have to be said?

The descriptions used to prove molten steel by truthers can also be found in the same way for Building 6 where you can find people saying that molten metal was running down the walls for example. But I've never heard Gage say Building 6 was demolished, in fact on the contrary I've heard him use Building 6 as an argument that the other 3 had to be demolitions. Funny that.

Dave Thomas wrote:explosion sounds,
Only god knows how many testimonies from eyewitness, news reports of explosion sounds. His denial of anything which pisses on what he BELIEVES is showing as we know the explosion sounds are cars crashing according to him......lol


Its funny how truthers go on about explosion "witness'' and yet we have actual video of the collapses and we hear no explosive detonations, yet this is the exact point where people like Gage claim all this steel flinging and skyscraper pulverising is meant to be occurring.

What truthers do have are quote-mines from people who used the word explosion who didn't mean explosive, realised later what it was they heard or in the rare case were just mistaken. In real demolitions the explosives are timed and sequential, they don't go off randomly all over the place. Truthers will use quotes from people that describe being thrown around by an explosion, and yet absolutely no one at all on 911 sustained any blast injuries whatsoever, so what kind of useless explosives work that way? Truthers also use witness' of fire balls as evidence of bombs and yet fire is not a characteristic of a high explosive. Ignoring the fact that they all described it and the aftermath as smelling like jet fuel, a real high explosive destroys infrastructure by creating a shock wave, a human would be reduced to meat chunks before they are burnt by one.

As always truther's idea of explosives make absolutely no sense showing that they do not understand the basics of sound, explosives or thermite.

All these questions neglect that the debris was shipped out from GZ very quickly and that not much was saved for investigator.


Except a lot of the steel was studied, even by independent researchers while it was still in the landfill. Sure there were a few legitimate researchers that said they should have been more careful about keeping more of it something I'd probably agree with but truther's claim is that it was all shipped off and destroyed before anyone could look at it. Presumably this is because they think that there was evidence all over that steel of explosives and if they had just looked at it it would have been obvious. I've also heard the bizarrely contradictive argument that they went over all the debris with a fine tooth comb as a reason why they should have found the black boxes. Jesse Ventura in his Conspiracy Theory TV show on 911 is a great example of truther's doing this, arguing two mutually exclusive arguments.

Dave Thomas wrote:(4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
While it might be difficult, it is not impossible and has Gage or Dave ever consider that thermite might have been used as an heat weakening agent as opposed to cutting the beams?


Well you know, as a former truther, that argument would have made sense to me.

However then I would have realised that no truther anywhere has ever shown that thermite can have this affect on steel beams in this way. All experiments with thermite have done nothing to the steel, as for nano thermite, Jesse Ventura had an experiment done by Van Romero with nano thermite. Sure it burned brighter and more vigorously(... than... nothing) but curiously Ventura omits the conclusion of the experimentwhich was that the nano thermite didn't destroy the steel. This is especially funny that Ventura thought he could do that since right before he showed this experiment Steven Jones just got done telling us that nano thermite turns into a "high explosive" when painted onto a steel beam and of course nothing exploded so I think its safe to say Jones just made it up to sound exciting, I think we can assume that he didn't realise Ventura was going to unintentionally debunk him.

Dave Thomas wrote:Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
Why is it contradictory?? Can't both methods have been used to destroy the towers?


Its contradictory because Richard Gage says things like this:



Thermite might have been used as opposed to conventional explosives to make it look less like a demolition and more like a natural collapse.If I were to task you with bringing down a building but I want you try and make it look like it fell on it's own accord so to speak, then using explosives wouldn't be a choice, you might need a few to help it to initiate or progress but you would have to use unconventional methods.


How would that work? If explosives were used to fling steel around or "pulverise" the building then nano thermite does not help one bit. If you want to explain the absence of explosive detonations you're going to have to drop this all talk of characteristics of explosive demolition.

Now this argument from debunkers comes from a strange delusion and contradictory argument. I know Dave doesn't make this argument, but Gage should ask him how much explosive Dave thinks would be needed to bring down the towers?
Naturally Dave would suggest hundreds of tons, planted all over the place, up and down the building etc etc...as do most debunkers, but he's fallen for my twoofer twap! lol


I think you just fell in your own trap... Truthers are the ones that need to come up with some numbers, but they cant even show they understand how explosives WORK let alone anything more complicated. The thing is...

So if that is the case, then all that is needed is some explosive devices to cut those same damaged columns that he believes the plane did and add thermite to heat weaken the same areas the jet fuel did and it should still collapse. Therefore it shouldn't requires hundreds of tons, planted all over the place, up and down the building etc etc.


...that begs the question of why that is not the truther position? I do agree... it would be a lot more sensible, still stupid, but a lot more sensible. Still......

His position requires no explosives for the towers to collapse, just damage and heat weakening in the affected area of initiation, yet his position changes because it would require explosives all over the place, not just in the affected area of initiation.


:ugeek:

........ you're the ones who say it had to be explosives because you believe the building can't collapse the way it did without them, built to withstand the redistributed weight of the top block, that explosives were everywhere going off randomly at all levels including the sub basements and that steel was being flung around and the whole building was being pulverised by them.

So apparently here you want to argue against yourselves... :|

That would be contradictory. I would also ask why he thinks demolition companies rig buildings from top to floor traditionally when they could use the NWO way (pardon the pun!) of demolishing buildings. Just damage a small area, set fire and bingo! lol


Hmm, yes thats a difficult one.

I would say its because they don't want to rain down massive destruction in a wide radius killing people and destroying other peoples buildings but hey, I'm just guessing!

Now this just highlights the whole contradictory nature of Dave. I do not think Gage thinks that the no plane hit the towers so what he is doing is taken a position most truthers think is absurd and applying it to Gage, it's smacks of desperation.


As I said to Dave on the JREF, he shouldnt really make a big deal out of no planers as even Alex Jones thinks they're nuts. But if he wants to bring it up he should make the point that Gage's group promotes Heiwa and his work, who is a no planer.

However on the Pentagon front, he claims there are thousands/hundreds to the airplanes which he believes is true, yet when there are thousands/hundreds (I don't think there are thousands! lol) of people who heard explosions, they were wrong.


Other truthers like Jim Hoffman call no plane at the Pentagon claims "hoax'"s and "disinformation". You know, something thats so wrong its actually intentional and probably the government, so I really feel no need to defend the OneFlewOverThePentagon variety of no planers.

I think the firefigther would be there as another form of attack by saying that truthers implicate the FDNY in to there mad conspiracies and therefore Gage must also support this position and give his account of how he heard nothing which doesn't prove that other people heard or witnessed nothing. So I'm kind of glad that it's a one to one but not sure of the role of the physicist.


I think the firefighter will be very good if he points out that if someone thinks that WTC7 only had minor fires, minor damage and no one would think it would collapse then they are calling the firefighters of the FDNY liars and covering up for mass murder for nearly 10 years. But no truther likes to deal with this.
Last edited by Edx on 12 Jul 2010, 00:54, edited 2 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 11 Jul 2010, 09:51

Scepcop wrote:You have to cut the columns and the resistance below the WTC in order to do that. Even Dan Rather and Peter Jennings said that on the day of the attack on the news, that you have to get at the "under infrastructure of a building to bring it down". I'm sure you've heard those clips where they say that. Every truther film shows those clips, which are all over YouTube. It's common sense.

This just cracks me up. So, I'd recommend that you tell Gage to use in his debate that Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, those two 100 story skyscraper demolition experts, confirmed on September 11 that it was a controlled demolition. Please. I can't wait to hear that.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 11 Jul 2010, 10:04

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
Your ridicule of that video proves nothing.

Gage was making a great point there, that for one to assume that an 80,000 ton structure (or how many tons it was) to collapse like air is totally ludicrous. Yet you'd have to believe that to buy the official story. He was showing you how ridiculous YOU are ProfWag. Therefore, the JOKE'S ON YOU!

IT DID NOT FREAKING COLLAPS LIKE AIR SCEPCOP! Go look closely at any video. LOOK CLOSELY! When your Truthers are saying the building has collapsed, they are showing all the smoke, but there's still 40 stories of building yet to come down. Tell your people to quit making stuff up to fit their theory.
You want someone who does know? Here:
The time required to strip off a floor is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.

Dr. Frank Greenburg
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 12 Jul 2010, 00:47

Scepcop wrote:Gage was making a great point there, that for one to assume that an 80,000 ton structure (or how many tons it was) to collapse like air is totally ludicrous. !


So then... if it collapsed like "air" then why did it take substantially longer than free fall? The North tower collapsed at over double the speed of "air". Does this not suggest there was substantial resistance?
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 12 Jul 2010, 00:49

Scepcop wrote:
So much for teams. We actually had an experienced structural engineer on our team too, with a lot of credentials.


Please tell me it was Anders "Heiwa" Bjorkman, lol.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron