Apparently Dave Thomas and others debating Gage, Harrit etc on Coast to Coast?

[Edx]

Not heard anything about this here, any details?




http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=270611#270611




Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.

The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. www.coasttocoastam.com/

I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: www.debunkingskeptics.com

I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:

www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220

Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.

Thanks,
Winston

[newton3376]

There is a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176078) where Dave Thomas mentions it in post #23.

[beachnut]

Coast to Coast? Only Aliens and John Lear listen to Coast to Coast; oops, I must be an alien those few times I have found John Lear spew BS about BS while I drive trying to dodge the Owls swooping into the highway trying to break my window late at night listening to woo.

[Mr.Herbert]

You can not debate Gage. He refuses to answer questions and admitted to me that he does not have the technical knowledge needed to understand the NIST reports.

He promised me last September that his team of engineers will look at Ryan Mackey's paper (i hand delivered it)that proves the MANY mistakes of Gage's mentor, Dr. Griffin. He was also given by me a copy of Greg Urichs open letter to him. Once again Gage promised me a response, once again he failed to respond. Writing to him was a joke as he refused to respond to my inquiries. When he is unable to answer questions, his parroted response is the typical: "That's why we need a true independent investigation." The guy is a douche that is making money off other douches.

[Edx]

hahaha!!!

Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

...

But I am in contact with Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org, so if you have any messages for him, I could pass them along. I also correspond with David Ray Griffin too.


yeah congrats man it's a cool thing to put on your resume

[tfk]

Dave,

The only person who will be capable of "baffling 'em with BS" is Harritt.

I'd suggest hammering home 3 points re: Farrer, Harrit, et al.

1. Why did they invent their own, NON-conclusive test methods (that just reveals elements), when there are cheap (about $70/sample), conclusive tests (X-ray diffraction, that reveals the pre- & post-reaction compounds) for thermite that are done routinely by qualified forensic labs all around the country (for arson cases)?

2. Not one of the Farrer, Harrit, Jones et al authors had ever performed a single forensic analysis for thermite prior to this paper. They are all amateurs in this specific field.

Don't let Harrit claim that his other, unrelated photo-chemistry background makes him an expert in this field.

The very fact that he - as the researcher with the most closely related experience - sanctioned the use of inconclusive (i.e., "incompetent") test method, when there are cheap, conclusive tests readily available, proves that he's not an expert!

3. Lots of scientific reports are simply sloppy &/or wrong. They fade into oblivion when others attempt to replicate them, but fail. Or, far more commonly, when real experts look at the report, immediately realize that it's incompetent, and simply ignore it. Which is exactly what has happened to Ferrar, Harrit et al.

So the true test of validity of any scientific testing is not the original work, but rather independent, competent replication & confirmation of the original work.

It's now been (3? 4?) years since Jones, Harrit et al began their "thermite chips" work. Where is the independent confirmation?

Given 1) incompetent methodology & 2) amateur status of authors, & 3) lack of independent, competent confirmation, Farrer, Harrit et al. is a non-entity.

Don't let him hijack the discussion into techno-babble. Move on to the next topic. Tell him to get back to you once somebody competent has published something that matters.


Tom

PS. The absolute, 100% proof that there was no thermite used is the complete absence of any "thermite cut" columns in the debris. All the columns were in their as-manufactured 3 story lengths. (With a small number of 1 & 2 story lengths immediately below & above the mechanical floors).

This proof has not been destroyed, shipped off to China, melted down, etc. It exists today in the tens of thousands of publicly available photographs of the rubble pile.

If, as Steven Jones has stated explicitly (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf) (see pg 23 of that doc or this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=053IpeEBji0&feature=related#t=9m5s)), a significant percent of the columns on every floor were cut, then somewhere between 1/4 & 3/4th of all the column remnants in the debris pile would have to have "cut" or "blown apart" into 1 story lengths.

None of these short stubs are visible.

All of these cut columns would have clearly visible damage to their ends characteristic of the cutting method used. If Jones et al had managed to cut a sample vertical column using thermite, you'd be able identify the cut from 20' away visually. Or from 1/2 mile away (with a telephoto lens).

I've poured over hundreds of hi-res photos from ground zero. I've not found a single one of the 10s of thousands of columns which has any of these clearly visible features.

Where are the tens of thousands of cut columns in the rubble pile?
Where are the tens of thousands of ragged melted or exploded ends?

Note that the above (IMO, conclusive) argument against thermite applies as well to any type of explosive.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Thanks for the tips! Keep 'em coming.

You can get an idea of my approach from the NMSR 9-11 page (http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm).

Cheers, Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Hi Dave.

I don't know if you want to get too bogged down in the minituae regarding the Harrit/Jones thermite work - and really, I fully admit that doing so might open you up to a stunning display of BS from the other side - but just in case it happens, you may want want to peek at these two posts from a poster here named Sunstealer:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658
... and you may also want to take a look at whatever Jones had written in response to it. I thought I read somewhere that he noted those analyses and said something in regards to it, but if he's done so, I don't know the details.

------

Also, as another avenue of information: You may want to take a quick skim of NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication. I say this because much is made of supposed "squibs" blowing columns, as well as Jones's own declaration of thermite being used on the same. Well, if you look at the stairwell diagrams in that report, you'll notice that on some floors the stairwells come quite close to the core columns. If those were honestly demolished via explosives or incendiaries, why did some people trapped in but surviving the collapse not be either blown to bits or burnt to a crisp? Truthers have never answered that. And yes, some folks were indeed trapped in stairwells when the towers collapsed.

------

ETA: I thought there were some posts around this subforum where we actually identified a set or two of trapped survivors and which stairwell they were on, and then went on to associate that with proximity to a core column. I swear I remembered looking over that, but I can't find the post(s). If anyone recalls, please post here. I'm not looking forward to duplicating that work.

[Brainster]

Gage claims to have helped design a large fireproofed steel-framed high-rise in Las Vegas. I would love to ask him why the steel-framed building he designed needed fireproofing if its true, as he claims, that fire alone cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed building.

[fourtoe]

Oh man, I cannot wait. Hopefully I'll have computer access on that day. Who else is gonna oppose D-Gage and the Truth Squad?

[Grizzly Bear]

Gage claims to have helped design a large fireproofed steel-framed high-rise in Las Vegas. I would love to ask him why the steel-framed building he designed needed fireproofing if its true, as he claims, that fire alone cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed building.

Personally one of the things I would also bring up are his case studies, specifically questioning why he compares buildings of different makes, and circumstances, (asserting that a concrete framed building should exhibit the behavior of steel framed construction and so forth).

Just my personal opinion, since these are the basis of a wide swath of his claims. It's an issue I'm sure if brought up he will have a difficult time answering to since no other individual I've spoken to supporting his theories has attempted justifying these comparisons.

[PhantomWolf]

Or possible just ask him if he can explain how scaling and different materials can affect proportional strength, and based on that, how he justifies the use of a cardboard box as a simulation of a 100 story building?

[rjh01]

I just query how much you should be discussing this in public. Remember that your opponents will be reading this. They will have an advantage if you know what you are going to say or your tactics. I suggest those that will be participating in this debate do not give public feedback on what you think. So do not say that an idea is comedy gold if someone suggests you say something.

[newton3376]

I just query how much you should be discussing this in public. Remember that your opponents will be reading this. They will have an advantage if you know what you are going to say or your tactics. I suggest those that will be participating in this debate do not give public feedback on what you think. So do not say that an idea is comedy gold if someone suggests you say something.

I actually don't think this is much of an issue.....

JREF is a public forum and yet truthers are not able to come here and effectively argue the various aspects of 9/11...both technical and non technical.

No one from the truther side has shown why NIST is in error....no one has debunked the various critiques by many of the users here (Mackey, TFK, NewtonsBit, SunStealer, etc)...there are many more names that I am not listing that have debunked everything from fake audio and photos used by the truth movement to the "stand down" idea.

Not to mention the many points, debates, and arguments raised by Roberts over the last few years.

There are over 100 peer reviewed journal articles that support the idea that the towers came down due to structural failure due to fire, while the truthers have only one article and it is in an "open journal" or a "pay to publish" journal.

And the editor resigned over the admittance of that article.

The best the truthers can hope for is to bring up some obscure point that their "opponent" isn’t familiar enough with to answer off the cuff and hope that this imply "proof" of an irrefutable claim.

So I would argue that it is the truthers who dare not show their hand, since each claim can be summarily dismissed with some research.

As for the "debunker" side.....when logic, science, math, engineering, and common sense are all on your side....you have a hand full of aces.

[tfk]

rj,

I agree with Newton.

There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about with regard to "showing our hand". That's the great thing about science & engineering: it flourishes under full, open disclosure.

Oh, yeah, Dave. One thought that occurred to me a while back...

A repeated mantra of the truthers is "why didn't other towers that caught fire collapse?"

It's been explained to them in detail every which way to Sunday (the physical damage of the impact, the loss of insulation, the instantaneous massive fire, the lack of a working sprinkler system, etc.)

But a good summary statement is the following:

"In the absence of the physical damage of the plane's impact, a significant percent of the columns would have to come up to about 700°C in order for collapse to occur. This is a tall order in a building with intact insulation & a working sprinkler system.

in the presence of the physical damage, a much smaller number of columns would have to only come up to only about 250 - 300°C in order for collapse to occur. This is easy to do with the loss of insulation, lack of sprinkler system, & massive fires."

(This is, of course, due to the loss of many columns, resulting in significantly higher, abnormal stresses on the remaining columns. And, per Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson (JEM ASCE, vol 134, 2008), at the higher stress levels, fatal amounts of creep happen at very low temps.)

Tom

[rjh01]

rj,

I agree with Newton.

There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about with regard to "showing our hand". That's the great thing about science & engineering: it flourishes under full, open disclosure.
<snip>

Tom

The problem with the above is that this is not "science & engineering" it is a debate. You should win as you have the facts on your side. If this was a soccer match you should win with a score of 20-0. A win with a score of 5-2 would not be very good. I am just worried that they may work out how to counter something you say you will do on this forum. I mean you do not know what they will say, so why should you let them know what you will say.

[Seymour Butz]

Just do what they do.

Point out their inadequecies, in both experience with the engineering involved and lack of evidence.

And then attack them.

Answer nothing.

Ridicule them.

It's ludicrous that you're gonna even distinguish these lunatics by debating them. Let them wither on the vine. Just like should be done with lunatics like Jammy.

[CurtC]

A repeated mantra of the truthers is "why didn't other towers that caught fire collapse?"

Bring along photos of the Madrid Windsor hotel - it consisted of a steel-framed part and a concrete-framed part. The steel part completely collapsed.

A bit of advice is to not let them get away with the Gish Gallop. If you're on one point, don't let them move to another unless they acknowledge that the previous one has been dealt with. If not, go back to it. Force them to pick their best arguments and stay with those - otherwise these guys can spew out so much BS in two minutes that it would take you the rest of the show to address them.

[Edx]

Bring along photos of the Madrid Windsor hotel - it consisted of a steel-framed part and a concrete-framed part. The steel part completely collapsed.

A bit of advice is to not let them get away with the Gish Gallop. If you're on one point, don't let them move to another unless they acknowledge that the previous one has been dealt with. If not, go back to it. Force them to pick their best arguments and stay with those - otherwise these guys can spew out so much BS in two minutes that it would take you the rest of the show to address them.

God knows Gage loves that tactic.

And please guys, if he starts talking about explosives again, PLEASE make him realise explosives and sound don't work the way he thinks they do?

MusSulcJwSk

[Steve001]

From Winston Wu aka Scepcop:
Apparently, the paranormal blogger Michael Prescott wrote a critical post about my involvement with the 9/11 Truth debate, and declares that he is rooting for the JREF side on this one:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... -jref.html (http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2010/06/rooting-for-jref.html)

See the ton of comments in his blog post. My response to Michael that I posted in his blog:
To Michael Prescott:

How much time have you spent researching 9/11? No one can claim that the full truth is known 100 percent. There are hundreds of unanswered questions and discrepancies and scientific impossibilities with the official story. Even you can see that surely?

Michael, just because the JREFers SAY that something is debunked does NOT prove that something is debunked. You as a critical thinker should know that.

FYI, the official fire collapse theory of the WTC has NEVER EVER been proven. Office fires burn at around 1000F while steel melts or softens at 2700F. JREF has NEVER been able to debunk that, neither has Popular Mechanics. They assume many things without proof.

More: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=20

[Edx]

This Winston fella pretends he is a skeptic but defends all kinds of woo, including David Icke, just so you know. He is a nut case. 911 Truth is just one idiocy he believes. He seems to have a particular dislike of the JREF if you read his websites debunkingskeptics

[TheRedWorm]

... and scientific impossibilities with the official story. ...

Such as?

[Edx]

Such as?

He is quoting Winston.

I replied on the forum....

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&p=15262#p15262

[twinstead]

FYI, the official fire collapse theory of the WTC has NEVER EVER been proven. Office fires burn at around 1000F while steel melts or softens at 2700F. JREF has NEVER been able to debunk that, neither has Popular Mechanics. They assume many things without proof.


You should trot out a theory that fits the available evidence better if you are going to say stuff like this, because the 'official fire collapse theory' is pretty much what the scientific and engineering world believe to be the best one.

[Edx]

You should trot out a theory that fits the available evidence better if you are going to say stuff like this, because the 'official fire collapse theory' is pretty much what the scientific and engineering world believe to be the best one.

Steve is just quoting WU! :D

[Seymour Butz]

This Winston fella pretends he is a skeptic but defends all kinds of woo

And appropriately, his last name is...

Wu.

[TheRedWorm]

He is quoting Winston.

I replied on the forum....

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&p=15262#p15262


Whoops. Too much reading woo crap, I tend to skip over colored font :blush:

[Edx]

And appropriately, his last name is...

Wu.

Winston Wu Woo lol

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

@ topic:

In a german forum (http://board.gulli.com/thread/1529864-neues-interview-mit-dr-niels-harrit/#post12628014) me and some folks (some of them Troofers :rolleyes: ) collected questions for an interview with that whackjob Harrit. The interview never happend, but maybe someone could ask those questions in that upcoming debate.

If someone is interested and has trouble understanding german, I could translate that stuff. (For most debunkers, this stuff should be nothing new.)

But I already would be very happy, if anyone could ask the question, how the hell the igniters of those thermite charges or bombs could have survived the plane crash or the fire and if they didn't, then why does the building fell many minutes later and not shortly after the plane crash?

And please, if someone asks this questions, do not let go til you get an answer, that is at least possible. In the Hardfire debate Mackey vs. Szamboti this question was raised, but it was not discussed in further detail and they just moved on, without a good answer from Szamboti.

[fourtoe]

God knows Gage loves that tactic.

And please guys, if he starts talking about explosives again, PLEASE make him realise explosives and sound don't work the way he thinks they do?

MusSulcJwSk

After one of the statements that you have in this video Gage does half-assedly address why some of the explosives still were heard. He states that some of them were still heard going off because it isn't an exact science. So even though these explosives were made to be silent, some of them must have gotten messed up and turned out to produce loud explosions because again, "it isn't an exact science".

Of course this argument only produces more questions like how are explosives designed to be silent in such a manner that if they were to be made improperly or damaged in some fashion, would become loud explosives?

@ topic:

In a german forum (http://board.gulli.com/thread/1529864-neues-interview-mit-dr-niels-harrit/#post12628014) me and some folks (some of them Troofers :rolleyes: ) collected questions for an interview with that whackjob Harrit. The interview never happend, but maybe someone could ask those questions in that upcoming debate.

If someone is interested and has trouble understanding german, I could translate that stuff. (For most debunkers, this stuff should be nothing new.)

But I already would be very happy, if anyone could ask the question, how the hell the igniters of those thermite charges or bombs could have survived the plane crash or the fire and if they didn't, then why does the building fell many minutes later and not shortly after the plane crash?

And please, if someone asks this questions, do not let go til you get an answer, that is at least possible. In the Hardfire debate Mackey vs. Szamboti this question was raised, but it was not discussed in further detail and they just moved on, without a good answer from Szamboti.

I know a good Truther response to this from listening to Michael Berger debate on the Infidel Guy. IG asked this question and Berger just said that the type of explosives they used burned at a higher temperature than the temperature the office fires produced.

Also Jim Hoffman called in during the Gage debate Edx was talking about in his post I quoted and talked about redundant wireless detonating devices that would need to have been set up onto the columns and I wouldn't be surprised if those got damaged in the fires.

However I can think of an ultimate Truther answer and that is that some of the explosives were in fact damaged by the fires and impact of the plane. This would explain why the explosions that were heard did not sound like CD explosions (because they were damaged and blew up incorrectly) and why they were heard at sporadic times (because the fire didn't damage some of the explosives until later on when the temperatures grew higher).

I can see the major flaws in that answer but I still think that it could sound legitimate to a listener not well-versed in the subject.

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

IG asked this question and Berger just said that the type of explosives they used burned at a higher temperature than the temperature the office fires produced.

That would just explain, why the explosif didn't detonate, but not why the igniter didn't go off and detonated the explosifs.

If you set an H-bomb on fire, their won't be a fusion of the Hydrogen, but the igniter would go off, which would detonate the explosif, which would shoot one part of the uranium to the other, which lead to the critical mass, which will ultimativly lead to the fusion of Hydrogen.
(Yeah I know, thats all to simple, but I just try to explain my point)

Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.

So either you have a bomb with an igniter, which transforms a radio signal into to high amounts of energy, capable of igniting the explosif, or you have a bomb without an igniter, which doesn't explode at all, because you can't ignite it.

I have trouble explaining that, but I hope you understand.


Also Jim Hoffman called in during the Gage debate Edx was talking about in his post I quoted and talked about redundant wireless detonating devices that would need to have been set up onto the columns and I wouldn't be surprised if those got damaged in the fires.

If they got damaged, the WTC couldn't have collapsed (if you go with the troofies). But I can't imagine, how they could get damaged without setting off the bombs. In the second the plane crashes, the fire was there.

However I can think of an ultimate Truther answer and that is that some of the explosives were in fact damaged by the fires and impact of the plane. This would explain why the explosions that were heard did not sound like CD explosions (because they were damaged and blew up incorrectly) and why they were heard at sporadic times (because the fire didn't damage some of the explosives until later on when the temperatures grew higher).

Some? All the bombs in the impact zone would have gone off, shortly after the impact. And thats exactly the spot, where the collapse began. So if there weren't any bombs or the bombs had gone off, how can the building collapse much later, if not due to fire?

I can see the major flaws in that answer but I still think that it could sound legitimate to a listener not well-versed in the subject.

Troofies should just show us an explosive device, which doesn't blow off at, lets say, 700°C and which you can still ignite 50 minutes later in a controlled fashion. The problem is, Troofers NEVER actually proofed anything, so I don't really hold my breath.

[fourtoe]

That would just explain, why the explosif didn't detonate, but not why the igniter didn't go off and detonated the explosifs.

If you set an H-bomb on fire, their won't be a fusion of the Hydrogen, but the igniter would go off, which would detonate the explosif, which would shoot one part of the uranium to the other, which lead to the critical mass, which will ultimativly lead to the fusion of Hydrogen.
(Yeah I know, thats all to simple, but I just try to explain my point)

Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.

So either you have a bomb with an igniter, which transforms a radio signal into to high amounts of energy, capable of igniting the explosif, or you have a bomb without an igniter, which doesn't explode at all, because you can't ignite it.

I have trouble explaining that, but I hope you understand.



If they got damaged, the WTC couldn't have collapsed (if you go with the troofies). But I can't imagine, how they could get damaged without setting off the bombs. In the second the plane crashes, the fire was there.



Some? All the bombs in the impact zone would have gone off, shortly after the impact. And thats exactly the spot, where the collapse began. So if there weren't any bombs or the bombs had gone off, how can the building collapse much later, if not due to fire?

These are all pretty legit responses. You explained it pretty well, especially the energy-radio signal bit. I should probably clarify that I disagree with all the stuff I wrote in that post, but I think that Truthers could get away saying this kind of crap because it would be harder to respond to. However I think you responded rather concisely!


Troofies should just show us an explosive device, which doesn't blow off at, lets say, 700°C and which you can still ignite 50 minutes later in a controlled fashion. The problem is, Troofers NEVER actually proofed anything, so I don't really hold my breath.

I can see Truthers saying that they need a new investigation so they can check and see if the military has designs for technology that complies with what was observed that day. Totally lame though.

[Edx]

After one of the statements that you have in this video Gage does half-assedly address why some of the explosives still were heard. He states that some of them were still heard going off because it isn't an exact science. So even though these explosives were made to be silent, some of them must have gotten messed up and turned out to produce loud explosions because again, "it isn't an exact science".

In the debate he says explosives were so intense it flung heavy steel away from the building and then says it was quiet because they used thermite. They can't have it both ways, either it was loud and intensely powerful or it was quiet and nothing was flung anywhere and nano thermite subtly melted stuff or whatever

But there is literally no defence they could possibly give to that argument Gage made.

[rjh01]

How Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and co could "win" the debate - Launch an attack on everything and everybody on the opposite side. Do not present any alternative case whatsoever. Do not present any evidence for anything. Demand the other side disprove what they say. If both sides then do this then Richard and co win.

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

I should probably clarify that I disagree with all the stuff I wrote in that post

I know, if you were actually a troofer, you would ask, how much "they" payed me.

but I think that Truthers could get away saying this kind of crap because it would be harder to respond to.

Szamboti got away with such crap and I often just hear from Troofers, what great technology the NWO has.

I can see Truthers saying that they need a new investigation so they can check and see if the military has designs for technology that complies with what was observed that day. Totally lame though.

Yep, thats exactly the phrase. If they come up with that ****, make clear that it has nothing to do with technology. Every chemical reaction needs an amount of energy to start, therefor you need an igniter, which would surely blow off in the fire. It is that simple, but they keep ignoring that.

If someone from JREF joins that debate, please don't let them escape from that point. In debates Skeptics often just debunk the crap of the Troofers. Changing that would be kind of cool. Just let them debunk such basic problems, like the igniter-thing, or the missing sound, or the missing explosif residues in the dust, or the problem that thermite can't burn vertically through a thick steel beam (I actually never saw it happen horizontally) and so on.

[tfk]

rj,

How Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and co could "win" the debate - Launch an attack on everything and everybody on the opposite side. Do not present any alternative case whatsoever. Do not present any evidence for anything. Demand the other side disprove what they say. If both sides then do this then Richard and co win.


This is exactly correct.

My best advice to Dave would be "simplify, simplify, simplify".

You can NOT discuss everything. Pick just a few (about 4) of the most important topics. That's it. Don't let them start with the scattershot routine.

Mirroring what rj said, IMHO, the biggest mistakes that debunkers make when debating truthers is letting truthers determine the topics. Then, it doesn't matter that you have compelling answers to their nonsense. You're still talking about their nonsense for the whole time.

Stop being reactionary. Be proactive. Demand at least 50% control of the time & topics. Beware the tactic of them bringing 8 people to the party, you bringing 2, and under the guise of giving everyone "equal time", they get 4x as much air time.

Spend the first half of the time giving the shortest, most concise answers possible to their questions. DEMAND that the second half of the time be spent with them answering your questions.

Keep a running tally for both sides of
1. questions asked
2. questions answered versus questions evaded with subject change.

Perhaps some folks here could suggest the best "big picture" questions.

I'd suggest the following questions:

1. The very cornerstone of the truther movement was "the towers fell too fast". This led many to (erroneously) claim that the lower columns must have been blown apart or melted. But in order for the building to have collapsed as it did (impact point down), each floor MUST have been blown in sequence. (As explicitly stated by Steven Jones in his debate with Leslie Robertson.)

Assume that, at a minimum, 10% of the columns on each floor needed to be compromised. Since each single 3-story column gets turned into multiple 1-story or 2-story columns, blowing 10% of the columns would result in 25% of the column ENDS in the rubble pile showing clear evidence of demolition or "melting". Evidence that would be unmistakable from the photos.

And yet, examining hi-res photos of Ground Zero or at Fresh Kills, photos available today, none of the column ends show such evidence.

The absence of blown apart or melted ends PROVES beyond doubt that the columns were not blown apart.

(Don't let them suggest that the blown apart columns were buried. They would have been uncovered as the debris removal progressed. There are photos of the entire removal process. No such columns were uncovered.)

2. No melted steel. In a similar fashion, IF steel had melted, there should have been many columns that transitioned from fully formed box columns or I beams into puddles. I have not seen one photo that showed such a transition. The famous "swiss cheese" WPI I-beam was corroded, NOT melted. Although greatly thinned, it still retained its I-beam shape.

A partly melted beam would have retained its original shape away from the melt line, and then globally "slumped" in a transition to a puddle of steel. And then, if left alone until it solidified, you would have had hundreds (or more) beams that looked like spoons. With well defined original sections (the handle) transitioning to large, spread out, irregular "bowls".

There are uncounted photos of the beams, both at GZ & at Fresh Kills (where they were stacked). No beams (that I've seen) show this unmistakable shape.

Note well that one, two, 10 or 50 "melted columns" (even if found) are irrelevant. In order for "melted steel columns" to have played any role in the collapse of the building, you'd have to show thousands of these melted columns.

Just my suggestions...

Tom

PS. When is this broadcast scheduled?

[tfk]

BTW, when setting one's expectations about the outcome of this broadcast, and the effort that it deserves, one must consider the audience.

This is not going to be a PBS / BBC "Meeting of the Minds" caliber audience. It is preselected to be regular "Coast-to-Coast" listeners.

That means folks who come back week after week after week for their minimum required dosage of big foot, alien abductions and 9/11 conspiracy.

Don't expect a warm welcome or many converts.

Tom

PS. Perhaps this is the best news to come out of this: the venues to which Richard Gage is reduced. Following Bigfoot.

Of course, Gage has now found his preferred milieu: traveling the world, absolving murderous, self-confessed terrorists & telling folk everywhere that "the US Gubbamint dunnit".

If there were one ounce of evidence for his clap-trap, then he might not be a traitorous putz.

[Oystein]

...
Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.
...

No, actually, even it that seems plausible to the layman, it really isn't so.
Different explosives have different porperties with regard to ignition. Some can be ignited by fire (temperature), some by electric spark, some by shock (hammer), some only by extreme shock (other high explosives). Some will just burn peacefully away when involved in a fire and not explode.

[newton3376]

BTW, when setting one's expectations about the outcome of this broadcast, and the effort that it deserves, one must consider the audience.

This is not going to be a PBS / BBC "Meeting of the Minds" caliber audience. It is preselected to be regular "Coast-to-Coast" listeners.

That means folks who come back week after week after week for their minimum required dosage of big foot, alien abductions and 9/11 conspiracy.

Don't expect a warm welcome or many converts.

Tom

PS. Perhaps this is the best news to come out of this: the venues to which Richard Gage is reduced. Following Bigfoot.

Of course, Gage has now found his preferred milieu: traveling the world, absolving murderous, self-confessed terrorists & telling folk everywhere that "the US Gubbamint dunnit".

If there were one ounce of evidence for his clap-trap, then he might not be a traitorous putz.

This is true....the truth "movement" for all intents and purposes is dead.

Every major truther question has been answered and every major truther point addressed.

We are going on 9 years since the WTC collapses and all they can muster with their "over 1,000 architects and engineers" is one questionable paper in a vanity journal.

Assuming they do as poorly in the debate with Thomas as they did in every hardfire debate, I'm not sure what is left to say......they are in the same category as the Moon landing hoaxers and Holocaust deniers.....fit to be ignored or mocked.

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

No, actually, even it that seems plausible to the layman, it really isn't so.
Different explosives have different porperties with regard to ignition. Some can be ignited by fire (temperature), some by electric spark, some by shock (hammer), some only by extreme shock (other high explosives). Some will just burn peacefully away when involved in a fire and not explode.

I didn't directly talk about the bomb (I was aware of the fact, that there are different igniters, but not in detail), I talked about the igniter. My position was that, if a plane full of kerosene flies in a bomb, well then either the igniter goes off and the bomb explodes or the bomb simply gets destroyed before the igniter is able to ignite the bomb.

Either way, the CD fantasy is completly impossible, because after the crash, there couldn't have been a working bomb anywhere near the impact zone, where the buildings later collapsed.

I'm no controlled demolition expert, but Jowenko (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1094167) seems to know the basics of CD, even if he has no qualification in blowing up high rises:

It can’t have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. Whats more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off... at 320 Grad Celsius, so they’d have detonated sooner.

If you have better sources, then go ahead and post them.

[ProBonoShill]

Great advice tfk.

I'd also suggest if they attempt to bring up anything about melting steel and witnesses who claimed they saw it, that you make it perfectly clear that molten "steel" and molten "metal" are two entirely different things.

Most witnesses were using a simile when describing what they saw as they were not qualified to tell the difference.

[Edx]

Great advice tfk.

I'd also suggest if they attempt to bring up anything about melting steel and witnesses who claimed they saw it, that you make it perfectly clear that molten "steel" and molten "metal" are two entirely different things.

Most witnesses were using a simile when describing what they saw as they were not qualified to tell the difference.

And I would also say... "so you must believe that WTC6 was also demolished?" since the same kind of witness' describe molten metal in WTC6 in the same way,

[tfk]

The best (i.e., trivially provable) demonstration of a "false expert" is the WTC museum curator (director?) who specifically describes the "meteorite" as "resolidified from molten steel".

Metallurgists are not museum curators. And vice versa. He is honestly saying what someone else has told him. He is simply & utterly wrong.

As proven by the fact that the meteorite has several pieces of readable paper sticking out of it.

BTW, as a second example of "an expert who got it wrong", Ray Bradbury also screwed the pooch. Paper does NOT ignite at Fahrenheit 451. Apparently he liked the sound of that title better than either: Centigrade 451, Celsius 451 or Fahrenheit 842. The real ignition temp of paper.

[And, as a 3rd example of "an expert who got it wrong", me. Who has quoted 451°F as the ignition temp of paper. It never occurring to me that a SciFi book that's been in print for almost 60 years could be so flagrantly wrong.

Silly me...]

Regardless of all the above, the temp required to melt steel is between 2100 & 2800°F, depending on the alloy.

All temps far above the ignition temp of paper.

There could not possibly be any legible paper sticking out of a once molten ingot of steel.

And the curator of the WTC museum is a far, far better expert than 99.999% of the bozos, uh, excuse me ... "experts" offered up by the truth movement.


Tom

[Oystein]

I didn't directly talk about the bomb (I was aware of the fact, that there are different igniters, but not in detail), I talked about the igniter. My position was that, if a plane full of kerosene flies in a bomb, well then either the igniter goes off and the bomb explodes or the bomb simply gets destroyed before the igniter is able to ignite the bomb.

Either way, the CD fantasy is completly impossible, because after the crash, there couldn't have been a working bomb anywhere near the impact zone, where the buildings later collapsed.

I'm no controlled demolition expert, but Jowenko (http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1094167) seems to know the basics of CD, even if he has no qualification in blowing up high rises:



If you have better sources, then go ahead and post them.

Igniters are not necessarily explosives themselves. But hmmm you might be right that they usually are in the context of CD.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Here's what Gage says he wants to talk about. Of course, your penetrating comments and analyses are welcomed!


Introduction

9/11 review, 2 airplanes - 3 WTC High-rises brought down

WTC 7 – Introduction & Fires

Intro, No plan impact, etc., NIST Fire Simulation, Photo & Video Evidence
Q: What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities
that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer extensive damage
and extensive fires leading to complete “collapse”?

WTC 7 – In Free-fall

Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance
Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?

WTC 7 – FEMA Report

Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.

WTC 7 – NIST Report

Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
Whistleblowers fired

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?


WTC 7 – Fires:

“Normal office fires”
No precedent
extraordinary hypothesis

WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples

RJ Lee report (with vaporized lead, aluminosilicates); USGS Results, EPA WTC dust signature; (Gas) temperatures given by official reports, (solid) temperatures required to explain evidence

WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses

Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero

Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction
WTC Twin Towers – Introduction

The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns), Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling) Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first 2/3 Free Fall

WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report

Destruction of evidence
Test results compared to official hypothesis (Steel Temps, Floor tests, Fireproofing loss)
UL involvement in investigation and in producing the WTC fire resistance plan
No Analysis of Collapse
Evidence omitted

WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness

Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions
Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”
Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete

No Title

Lateral Ejection
Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
Total Building Destruction

Overall Concluding Remarks


The most amazing thing about Gage's proposal is that he demands to start each and every topic with a three-minute spiel, claiming "Party A [Gage/Harrit/et.al.] is promoting the alternative theory so in each segment they will begin by bringing forth the evidence associated with that segment." :jaw-dropp

I've sent the C2C AM folks a very brief list of topics we are able and willing to discuss. Methinks host Ian Punnet will not go along with Gage's over-the-top attempts to micromanage every single point in the entire debate.

Let er rip!
Cheers, Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?


As a physicist, I have to say there simply aren't enough laughing dogs for that one. Denial of thermal expansion looks like it's replacing pyroclastic flow as the key indicator of truther pseudointellectualism.

Dave

[carlitos]

I think it is a function of their delusion that people who believe this stuff are utterly incapable of being concise. The above "agenda" is a perfect example. He will have 15 separate 3-minute (which will really be 5 to 10 minute) filibusters and then start debating? No way. Having heard him on the radio, he rambles on and weaves all these subjects together, so I can't imagine how he'd keep focus.

[16.5]

"WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses
Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero."

Other than Jones making this up, where is the support for the claim that there was molten metal of any kind beneath WTC7. It was not in the "bathtub." While there is evidence of molten metal "at Ground Zero" Gage himself claims that WTC7 collapsed into a "Neat Pile."

"Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples."

Jones refuses to distribute his samples for independent testing, and the testing he did was worthless.

"WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction.' This is where to hit him repeatedly with suggestions that his theory implies that the FDNY was in on it.

[Edx]

Hi Dave,

Well here's what I would say... summarised.

Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

If there was "no resistance" then the entire collapse of WTC7 would have to be in free fall, yet even Gage's incompetent buddy David Chandler could only find 2.25 seconds.

They ignore the internal collapses which explain why there might be 2.25 seconds of apparent free fall. (ie. stuff is being pulled down)

If its symmetrical and neat how did it manage to fall accross a 4-lane street and critically damage 30 West Broadway.


WTC 7 – NIST Report
[LIST]
Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
Whistleblowers fired

Most of that is very vague. I assume by computer simulations he is going to refer to the NIST simulation that shows a lot of twisting and buckling but which doesnt seem to be that apparent in the videos. I cant remember what people here were saying about that so i would check and make sure you have that answer.

Whistleblowers fired most likely refers to Kevin Ryan. Read up on why he was actually fired so that he cant pretend Ryan ISNT a lying asshat.

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?

uuuuh, yes?


Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?

He is probably going to claim here that there wasn't enough combustible materials present in order to fuel the fires. He will probably claim that by law they can only have a certain amount of fuel in one place so that if fire takes hold it will burn up that fuel and then have nowhere to go because all the fuel is gone.


WTC 7 – Fires:
“Normal office fires”
No precedent
extraordinary hypothesis

By normal, I think we can safely assume he means small or minor. In which case I'd refer him to the fact that they were not at all considered small or minor and if he disagrees he is calling the FDNY liars.



WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples


Ignores any other possible source for iron microspheres and ignores that official dust reports says they were expected, so, why might they be expected? Etc.

WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses

Then WTC6 must also have been a demolition since people also talk about molten metal running down the walls and so on. See the end of this 911 myths article:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html


Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;




Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero

If it couldnt be put out how did they put it out? If he is claiming it was thermite, then I would ask him to explain just how much thermite he imagines was in the towers to generate that much heat for that amount of time.



Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples

lol, ps: submit to a legitimate journal or stfu.


WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction

By firefighters who had and have no problem with the collapse and in the end literally waited around for it to happen. I would press on him that he is calling the FDNY liars and ask why doesnt he call on them to tell the truth.


The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns), Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling) Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first 2/3 Free Fall

Too much stupid to summarise response. Im sure you got this one anyway.


WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report
Destruction of evidence

?

Evidence omitted
WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness
Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions

Hundreds of quote-mines.

If the buildings were taken down with explosives they would not have been going off randomly all over the place. They would not be able to "throw" people around and yet not cause them any blast injuries whatsoever. If the buildings were taken down with explosives then why is it we hear absolutely no explosive detonations when the buildings collapse?

Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”

huh?

Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)

Wheres the explosions?


Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete


Where's the intense explosions that can "pulverise concrete"?

He is of course ignoring the fact that most of the dust cloud is dry wall and there was very little actual concrete in the buildings. Add to that that real explosive demolitions aren't pulverising the building either, its still the actual building collapsing that is destroying it.

He will probably also ignore that the thick black dust that occurs in the onset of the collapse only occurs on the fire damaged floors after it gets past that its a normal grey colour.


No Title
Lateral Ejection

Where's the gigantic intense explosions that can fling steel around?

(nano thermite can't make it quieter Richard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk))


Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos

Does he think they would all be pilled up undestroyed?

Why doesnt this happen in verinage demolitions? They dont use explosives.


Total Building Destruction


So? That's also what happens in Verinage as well.

[Edx]

I think the easiest way to make Gage seem like a fool is to pick up and not let go of the contradiction that he claims huge intense explosives hurled steel around and then explaining away the lack of huge intense explosive detonations by saying they used thermite as he thinks that would make it quiet.

That is pretty easy to understand from a lay persons' perspective and in my opinion makes them easily look like idiots. Trying to debate jolts and so on will just fly over the head of most people, and its painfully dull anyway.

[carlitos]

I think the easiest way to make Gage seem like a fool is to pick up and not let go of the contradiction that he claims huge intense explosives hurled steel around and then explaining away the lack of huge intense explosive detonations by saying they used thermite as he thinks that would make it quiet.

That is pretty easy to understand from a lay persons' perspective and in my opinion makes them easily look like idiots.

This makes sense to me.

Also, in terms of the massive conspiracy / cover up required, this might appeal to laymen. As noted, maybe stress the contradiction between the FDNY being "in on it" despite losing hundreds of their brothers that day? Also, does anyone think it would be worthwhile to accuse him of libeling / slandering Marvin Bush, for example? I know that the Bush's aren't popular with the conspiracy-minded, but can you really just accuse a guy of complicity to commit mass murder and not provide evidence?

[Edx]

As noted, maybe stress the contradiction between the FDNY being "in on it" despite losing hundreds of their brothers that day?

But they don't claim that they just imply it from their arguments,

They simultaneously take quotes from firefighters and say something like "see they said explosion, therefore thats evidence firefighters knew there were bombs" and then completely and totally ignore all firefighter comments about Building 7. I didn't even know there was any firefighter comments until I actually read Mark Roberts collection where I could see dozens and dozens of them spoke about it.

They only like to say that maybe some of the higher ups from the FDNY were in on it, but refuse to say who that might be and ignore that firefighters were saying things first hand that they ignore (as I said above).

So if they say that there were minor fires in the WTC, they are calling the FDNY and emergency services liars. If they are saying there were only minor fires, minor damage and no one would imagine it would collapse then they are calling the FDNY liars. But not just all the firefighters that spoke about it at the time, but nearly 10 years later and none of them have said any different.

I wonder if they use the quote-mine that the fires in the WTC could be taken down with a "couple of lines", I hope he does so that Dave can show that this is completely taken out of context,


Also, does anyone think it would be worthwhile to accuse him of libeling / slandering Marvin Bush, for example?

I'd rather accuse them of slandering Silverstein. Claiming that pull it is demolition term when it isn't. that he admitted to it on live TV, that he did it for the insurance money when he lost a lot of money.

As for Marvin Bush, I think its easier to say its just not true. Marvin Bush really had nothing to do with security except that he used to work for a company that were providing some security software. The only reason they bring this up anyway is to try and make the idea that no one saw them rigging the WTC for demolition a little bit more plausible.

[carlitos]

Good points - I forgot to mention Silverstein. A good rebuttal to claims that 'pull it' is a demolition term would be "no it's not" and "you're wrong Richard - it doesn't mean anything like that" followed by "actual demolition experts disagree with you" and "you just made that up - like supernanothermite" again and again and again. Like anything else, don't let him move on until it's resolved.

Sticking with arguments towards laymen, why not ask why the evil neocons framed patsies from Saudi, Lebanon, the UAE and Yemen so they could invade Iraq and Afghanistan? That can't make sense to anyone.

Ask Richard how many people would have to be "in on it," and what a reasonable price to buy their silence for 9 years would be. Then ask why 100% of them have remained silent, when they could win worldwide fame and fortune for revealing the "truth." It could be revealing, but who knows, maybe he has a good answer for that.

If he ever says "arabs living in caves" call him a racist SOB and ask him how the hell engineers and pilots are such a thing. For some reason, they all seem to use this phrase.

[RedIbis]

I'd rather accuse them of slandering Silverstein. Claiming that pull it is demolition term when it isn't. that he admitted to it on live TV, that he did it for the insurance money when he lost a lot of money.



Prove he lost a lot of money.

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Here's what Gage says he wants to talk about. Of course, your penetrating comments and analyses are welcomed!
[...]

Jesus....

This is still the same crap, they always talk about and that has been debunked for years.

The most amazing thing about Gage's proposal is that he demands to start each and every topic with a three-minute spiel, claiming "Party A [Gage/Harrit/et.al.] is promoting the alternative theory so in each segment they will begin by bringing forth the evidence associated with that segment."

Don't let them controll the debate. Try to make your own points and let them play the debunkers. You cannot debunk anything with these idiots, they just jump to the next topic, without acknowledging any of your arguments. So the best is, if you go the quick way and make your own points.

I and Oystein talked about the problem with the igniters (either they get destroyed or they blow up the bombs in the moment of the plane crash), that is a point you could make, other points would be:

The complete lack of explosive residues in the dust or any other signs of explosive is a good sign, that there weren't any explosifs. Seismic data or the audiotracks from the video material also completly debunk the explosif crap and yes, there we're bomb sniffing dogs.

Gage likes to tell us, how everything was blown up. If you make that point above and he switches to "silent thermite", then you just have to quote his "old" explosif fantasies and make him look like a retard or even Harrit:


Quote from 911flogger (http://911blogger.com/node/20094)
During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Make clear, that there is absolutly no evidence of any explosifs, which completly debunks any of their fantasies. Even Harrit said in an interview with russia today, that they didn't found any evidence:


Quote from Russia Today (http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html?fullstory)
I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!

RT: So we are not just talking about nano-thermite. In fact, we are talking about both nano-thermite and conventional explosives used in large quantities…

Niels Harrit: We have not found remains or traces of conventional explosives.

What a complete *********** moron.

I case of thermite you also could just bring up the fact, that thermite is completly useless in a controlled demolition, since you cannot cut vertically or even horizontally, because it reacts to chaotic and then just flows down the path of least resistence (which is not where the steal beam is).

For example you could talk about that complete failure at burning man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYOHlJKcXrg&fmt=18) or the experiment on National Geographic.

When they then wanna talk about that super-nano-thermite, just quote the emails between Jones and Greening:


Quote from Greening (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html%23p2664)
I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. And, by the way, you have not commented on this calculation as you said you would. Nevertheless, my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!

Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.

Seems like their "nano-thermite" is not that great either.

You can also still make clear, that thermite isn't invisible. I mean, common that stuff burns almost as bright as the sun, how could anyone have missed it on any of the videos. The only thing that was glowing in such manner was probably the UPS Generator in one (!) of the towers and that was long before the collaps.

To summarize:

There is no evidence for the use of explosifs on 911, but much against it.
Thermite or Nano-Thermite doesn't work, there is no evidence for it and again much against it.


That way you can "pre-debunk" every of their thermite and explosif fantasies, which could save you some time. :)

Oh and for stupid and idiotic ******** like this:

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?

... remind him of the Madrid landmark, where in fact the steel contruction has failed and collapsed, they just like to ignore that.

Oh and please ask Harrit, where the hell the samples are for the confirmation of their nano-thermite paper. This guy here in germany (http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/mente-et-malleo/skeptische-ecke/2010-01-29/befand-sich-nanothermit-zwischen-den-tr-mmern-des-world-trade-centers) really wants to test that stuff and he isn't the only one.

He could end all the speculation, but no....

Hmm I wonder why he doesn't give any of that stuff away to critics, he just must be the greatest of all scientists...

I could go on and on forever, but that should be enough.

[16.5]

Prove he lost a lot of money.

Prove he made out like a bandit, like you claimed not too long ago.

[DGM]

I'd like to know when he plans to turn his "petition" in to Congress. You might also want to point out that petitions are usually completed in a reasonably short period of time, like a year tops. Ask him how he knows how many people on that list still support his position after all this time (it's a loaded question, he has no way of knowing)

[Edx]

Prove he lost a lot of money.

You've been shown the numbers over and over again Red, I have no intention of making this a 30 page thread where you find every reason you can think of to hand wave it.

[Edx]

Good points - I forgot to mention Silverstein. A good rebuttal to claims that 'pull it' is a demolition term would be "no it's not" and "you're wrong Richard - it doesn't mean anything like that" followed by "actual demolition experts disagree with you" and "you just made that up - like supernanothermite" again and again and again. Like anything else, don't let him move on until it's resolved.

If he did want to maintain that pull it was a demolition term I would say that if it really was and everyone in the industry knows it why people like Alex Jones have such trouble finding evidence of this they have to quote-mine people into sounding as if they are saying it, namely that part in American Rebuilds when that worker says "we're getting ready to pull building 6", when they meant literally, with cables, not explosives.

[The Almond]

Here's what Gage says he wants to talk about. Of course, your penetrating comments and analyses are welcomed!
[abridged for sanity]
Let er rip!
Cheers, Dave

Dave, with all due respect, this sounds like it will be a spewfest. These topics wander aimlessly in and out of cogent theories of destruction. As others have pointed out, even in this outline, Gage is pointing to phenomena that contradict each other. He ascribes lateral ejection to an explosion, but demands that thermite is also used. Instead of demanding that Gage present a singular, evidence based theory of destruction, you're allowing him to simply present a bunch of disconnected lies and half truths. That's not going to work out well for the debunking side, especially given that at least 2 of the topics he mentions above begin from outright lies.

Frankly, this is the wrong type of debate to engage in, since you have to acknowledge that Gage's topics are somehow valid. They aren't. They are disparate anomalies, most of which have mundane, well understood explanations. Providing the mundane explanations simply puts you on the defensive for the entire debate, and any of the explanations involving high school level physics and above will be roundly ignored by the majority of those already convinced of a conspiracy.

I think the strongest argument in your favor is that the truthers have had 9 years to come up with a cohesive theory. They have nothing. Not a single theory explains all of the evidence. To me, the ideal debate would be:


Richard Gage presents the Alternative 9/11 Theory (15 min)

Who did it
When
What did they do it with
Who financed them
Who gave the orders, organized the plot
How it happened

Cross examination and questions from Dave Thomas
Dave Thomas presents the evidence gathered by the US government, the NY state and local governments, the FBI, CIA, The 9/11 Commission, NIST and the US Congress.

Who did it
When
What they did it with
Who financed them
Who gave the orders and organized the plot
How it happened

Cross examination and questions from Gage
Closing remarks by both opponents

To me, this would be a hands down win for the debunkers. We have all of the evidence, and Gage would be put in the embarassing position of admitting that nano-thermite and conventional explosives don't explain much of anything.

[Edx]

I'd also that in 9 years truthers do not have a single paper in a legitimate and well respected journal. One that spams scientists and where editors quit in embarrassment are not legitimate or respected.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave, with all due respect, this sounds like it will be a spewfest. These topics wander aimlessly in and out of cogent theories of destruction. As others have pointed out, even in this outline, Gage is pointing to phenomena that contradict each other. He ascribes lateral ejection to an explosion, but demands that thermite is also used. Instead of demanding that Gage present a singular, evidence based theory of destruction, you're allowing him to simply present a bunch of disconnected lies and half truths. That's not going to work out well for the debunking side, especially given that at least 2 of the topics he mentions above begin from outright lies....

Not to worry, these are Gage's demands, not mine. I've told the C2C producers that I am not in agreement one little bit. Indeed, Gage said today this: I'm forwarding your message to Ian Punnett who is our actual radio program host. He will be asking us each to reduce the number of guests and wants to change the structure.

Ian - pls clarify for all.

Thanks!

Richard

And there you have it. Gage is the one proposing this elaborate "structure," and the C2C people aren't buying it. For my part, I've said "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.


To me, it looks like Gage is having trouble selling his rigged "structure" to the Coast-to-Coast people. Looks like he undersatnds radio show structure as well as he does structural dynamics! ;)

Cheers, Dave

[Seymour Butz]

As others have pointed out, even in this outline, Gage is pointing to phenomena that contradict each other. He ascribes lateral ejection to an explosion, but demands that thermite is also used.



Your whole post was perfect.

Letting Gage dictate what will be discussed is downright disgusting.

Now that you've seen what HE wants to talk about, refuse and submit YOUR OWN topics that will be discussed. Like the one above.

Pick 2 or 3 subjects only and hammer him into dust with his own stupidity. Point out his errors and contradictory statements and MAKE him explain them. If he pulls out the scattergun of woo, talk over him and demand that he answer your questions. Don't let him off the hook. IMHO, this will be the weak point in your debate, Dave. You aren't used to dealing with the fluidity with which twoofs can flow from subject to subject. It is a tribute to their immersion into the woo and their total devotion to their delusions that they have their crap down so well.

Debating style, not your knowledge base Dave. That will be the problem.

Dave T and the rational side will want to give them a recpectful debate, since they have their reputations at stake. These retards don't deserve the respectful type of debate that Dave and co will bring. Too bad some anonymous guys from here can't go on and rip them a new a-hole, since THAT'S what they deserve.

[Seymour Butz]

(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.




That's a good list.

Now get C2C to limit it to a few. Don't let Gage and co go off track. Be aggressive in asking him for answers, demand them. When he can't, supply them. Give answers to how much TNT equivalent it would take to fling a single ext column 300'. Give a range of answers, factoring in a starting velocity of zero - x feet per second, and point out that it's ludicrous that ANY explosions of that magnitude and brissance are in evidence. Make him admit his ludicrous claim. When he doesn't/dodges, point out to the listeners that he won't admit his errors/dodge.

Hammer them with words like Bazant used in reply to Bjorkman - ridiculous, unsubstantiated, without merit..... you get the picture.

Gage is NOT a professional, and deserves zero respect. Nor his companions.

Appoint a hitman from your group to belittle them and their woo.

[Grizzly Bear]

(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.


If you don't mind interjecting a little bit of my own experience discussing on one or two of these issues... for #2 keep in mind the possibility that he will use either Chandler's, or Szamboti's claim that there was no such thing experienced at the moment of collapse initiation (the "no jolt" contention). If this comes up be aware that their assumptions are made after an erroneous interpretation of the limiting case model worked on by Bazant and Zhou. This will tie in with the #1 bullet in your list here. You'll find more detail on this if you look through the physics toolbox thread (though the subject comes up multiple times elsewhere too). If you'd like more detail up front me, and I'm sure a number of others would be willing to condense it, I just don't feel it appropriate to do immediately in this thread.

#6 I'm not sure if you want to bring that up with Gage, as even he doesn't support the no plane theory at the WTC (at least that's my current understanding). Doing so would likely not have much impact other than to prompt him to call it a red herring.

[ElMondoHummus]

#6 I'm not sure if you want to bring that up with Gage, as even he doesn't support the no plane theory at the WTC (at least that's my current understanding). Doing so would likely not have much impact other than to prompt him to call it a red herring.

This is a very good point. There is actually no one-size-fits-all trutherism; rather, there are distinct groups: No planers, NIST nitpickers, NORAD "stand down" MIHOP'ers, etc. Gage and Harritt concentrate on Twin Tower/7 World Trade collapse issues from different angles, and they combine elements of picking at NIST's reports as well as providing some original "research" :lolsign: (Harritt, with Steven Jones; Gage has done none, to the best of my knowledge), but what binds them is that they both hold a belief in the use of explosives and/or (whichever is more convenient) incendiaries as having been used to bring down the towers. What they don't pay attention to are the no planers. So bringing up no-plane conspiracy peddling is about as useful as discussing geocentrists when arguing against Apollo Hoaxers: They're both pushing astronomy pseudoscience, but other than that, neither have any real relation to one another.

[Edx]

Hammer them with words like Bazant used in reply to Bjorkman - ridiculous, unsubstantiated, without merit..... you get the picture.
.

Dont forget to point out how crazy Bjorkman is, I hope Dave knows Heiwa's reputation. The worst of which being that he is a no planer of course...

[Edx]

This is a very good point. There is actually no one-size-fits-all trutherism; rather, there are distinct groups: No planers, NIST nitpickers, NORAD "stand down" MIHOP'ers, etc. Gage and Harritt concentrate on Twin Tower/7 World Trade collapse issues from different angles, and they combine elements of picking at NIST's reports as well as providing some original "research" :lolsign: (Harritt, with Steven Jones; Gage has done none, to the best of my knowledge), but what binds them is that they both hold a belief in the use of explosives and/or (whichever is more convenient) incendiaries as having been used to bring down the towers. What they don't pay attention to are the no planers. So bringing up no-plane conspiracy peddling is about as useful as discussing geocentrists when arguing against Apollo Hoaxers: They're both pushing astronomy pseudoscience, but other than that, neither have any real relation to one another.

If he complains if Dave brings up no planers, maybe he could also be told that Gage has been sympathetic to no plane at Pentagon theories in the past and people like Jim Hoffman calls these claims hoax's and disinfo in the same way.Still, I think no planes at the WTC are very fringe so I would only bring it up if he starts talking about his list of "experts" when one of them is Heiwa, who they promote on their website specifically.

[ProBonoShill]

I'd also that in 9 years truthers do not have a single paper in a legitimate and well respected journal. One that spams scientists and where editors quit in embarrassment are not legitimate or respected.

I'd bring this up during my final comments, point out how lax the criteria is to become a member of AE911 and considering there are over 4 million licensed architects and engineers worldwide why he has been able to sign up less than 700 in 9 years. Which translates to 99.999% of people in these professions not supporting or caring about truther delusions. The existence of Santa Claus has more support.

I don't have a problem lumping him in with no planers. For listeners that only have a passing interest in this topic, it will show them how insane truthers are and that Gage et al are just as crazy as the rest of them.

Dave, do you know who will be hosting the program?

George Noory I presume?

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave, do you know who will be hosting the program?

George Noory I presume?

No, it'll be Ian Punnett, as mentioned above.

As for me knowing about Heiwa's antics, check out my May 19th presentation to NMSR (http://www.nmsr.org/911_may2010.pdf#42).

Cheers, Dave

[16.5]

No, it'll be Ian Punnett, as mentioned above.

As for me knowing about Heiwa's antics, check out my May 19th presentation to NMSR (http://www.nmsr.org/911_may2010.pdf#42).

Cheers, Dave

Harrit is going to be there, huh? As soon as he starts babbling on about his tests showing Super Thermite in dust collected in the vicinity of WTC, remind him that scientific discoveries must verifiable, testable and repeatable.

Flat out ask him for a sample of the dust. Tell him that you will pay for the samples to be tested in an independent lab (if he says yes, e-mail me, I am sure there are a dozen people who pay for the testing out of their own pockets, including me).

When he hems and haws and ultimately refuses, tell him to STFU. Every time he opens his mouth afterwards ask him “Did you change your mind on releasing your samples to the scientific community.. No?... then STFU.”

[The Almond]

Harrit is going to be there, huh? As soon as he starts babbling on about his tests showing Super Thermite in dust collected in the vicinity of WTC, remind him that scientific discoveries must verifiable, testable and repeatable.

Flat out ask him for a sample of the dust. Tell him that you will pay for the samples to be tested in an independent lab (if he says yes, e-mail me, I am sure there are a dozen people who pay for the testing out of their own pockets, including me).

When he hems and haws and ultimately refuses, tell him to STFU. Every time he opens his mouth afterwards ask him “Did you change your mind on releasing your samples to the scientific community.. No?... then STFU.”

This may be jumping the gun. Harrit has dust with no provenance and no acceptable chain of custody. Testing it would be absolutely worthless as the data would be laughed out of every reputable scientific journal in the world. If anything, Dave should hammer home the concept of chain of custody, random sampling methods and valid forensic analysis techniques.

[The Almond]

Not to worry, these are Gage's demands, not mine. I've told the C2C producers that I am not in agreement one little bit. Indeed, Gage said today this:

I'm more than certain that you have this debate well in hand. If you can keep Gage on relevant topics (such as you have listed below) and demand that he provide evidence and proof, you'll win handily.

[ProBonoShill]

No, it'll be Ian Punnett, as mentioned above.

As for me knowing about Heiwa's antics, check out my May 19th presentation to NMSR (http://www.nmsr.org/911_may2010.pdf#42).

Cheers, Dave

Ahhh yes, I should've realized this after seeing the date, July 31st, which is a Saturday, the only night Ian hosts the program.

I hope he let's you state your case, Ian likes to add his own commentary and opinions to the show, something Noory doesn't do so much.

I'd recommend listening to a few of his past shows to get a feel for the way he handles guests.

[RedIbis]

Not to worry, these are Gage's demands, not mine. I've told the C2C producers that I am not in agreement one little bit. Indeed, Gage said today this:

And there you have it. Gage is the one proposing this elaborate "structure," and the C2C people aren't buying it. For my part, I've said "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.


To me, it looks like Gage is having trouble selling his rigged "structure" to the Coast-to-Coast people. Looks like he undersatnds radio show structure as well as he does structural dynamics! ;)

Cheers, Dave

So it looks to be more of a debate about perceived prevailing Twoofie theories, as opposed to having to debate and defend official theories, such as NIST's WTC 7 single column collapse theory.

I can understand why you would want to attack the low hanging fruit, as opposed to having to defend the indefensible, namely, hypotheticals without any physical evidence to support.

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7, and how reliable are theories without physical evidence, how might you respond?

[Dave Rogers]

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7, and how reliable are theories without physical evidence, how might you respond?

A reasonable response might be (a) the physical evidence produced by centuries of study of the thermal and mechanical properties of materials, yielding a thorough understanding of their thermal expansion, elastic and plastic deformation, and (b) physical evidence is only one single category of evidence, and theories may be throughly reliable if supported by other evidence.

Dave

[RedIbis]

A reasonable response might be (a) the physical evidence produced by centuries of study of the thermal and mechanical properties of materials, yielding a thorough understanding of their thermal expansion, elastic and plastic deformation, and (b) physical evidence is only one single category of evidence, and theories may be throughly reliable if supported by other evidence.

Dave

How could there be physical evidence from the WTC 7 produced by centuries of study? That's stupid beyond belief.

And since this is the first instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing due to fire, and the first time that single column failure has resulted in global collapse, precedence isn't exactly your friend.

[16.5]

So it looks to be more of a debate about perceived prevailing Twoofie theories, as opposed to having to debate and defend official theories, such as NIST's WTC 7 single column collapse theory.

I can understand why you would want to attack the low hanging fruit, as opposed to having to defend the indefensible, namely, hypotheticals without any physical evidence to support.

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7, and how reliable are theories without physical evidence, how might you respond?

The whole *********** truth movement are low hanging fruit. Where do you get off thinking that you are better than the rest of the truthers? Gee, look at Red Ibis, the Belle of the Truther Ball! So smart so pretty! he doesn't mess up his pretty dresses with dirty things like expressing an opinion.

Theories without "physical evidence." What do you consider "physical" evidence, anyway, Princess?

In addition, all science that is based on computer modeling bows down before our Pretty Princess. On the other hand, Einstein thinks you are a mope.

/say, Princess, you ever gonna get around to explaining how Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit?

[Dave Rogers]

How could there be physical evidence from the WTC 7 produced by centuries of study?

You didn't ask for physical evidence from WTC7. You asked what physical evidence NIST relied on to support their theory. If you don't understand your own posts, that's hardly my problem.

Dave

[RedIbis]

You didn't ask for physical evidence from WTC7. You asked what physical evidence NIST relied on to support their theory. If you don't understand your own posts, that's hardly my problem.

Dave

This is an impressive level of semantics, but really, I said right here what is easily understood:

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

A reasonable response might be (a) the physical evidence produced by centuries of study of the thermal and mechanical properties of materials, yielding a thorough understanding of their thermal expansion, elastic and plastic deformation
Dave

This... has absolutely no meaning to them unfortunately. Their mentality is the equivalent of thinking such research is fraudulent with no basis to back such a mentality up.

[RedIbis]

This... has absolutely no meaning to them unfortunately. Their mentality is the equivalent of thinking such research is fraudulent with no basis to back such a mentality up.

No not fraudulent, just highly speculative, without any commensurate physical evidence to support a very audacious hypothesis.

[Dave Rogers]

This is an impressive level of semantics, but really, I said right here what is easily understood:

Yes, you asked what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory. The answer is that they relied on a huge body of physical evidence, from which the physical properties of the materials were known; these physical properties were used as parameters in the modelling that resulted in their conclusions. That's a perfectly reasonable answer to the question you asked.

Apparently, you've forgotten how to frame your own misleading questions.

Dave

[grandmastershek]

Does anyone remember of there was a mention in the Jones NT paper, or somewhere else, about another lab conducting a parallel study of the chips? If so ask when we will see this research and if it will be published in a real journal.

Also, who will be on the debunking side? I didn't see any concrete references here or in the other thread; aside from DT.

[ProBonoShill]

So it looks to be more of a debate about perceived prevailing Twoofie theories, as opposed to having to debate and defend official theories, such as NIST's WTC 7 single column collapse theory.

I can understand why you would want to attack the low hanging fruit, as opposed to having to defend the indefensible, namely, hypotheticals without any physical evidence to support.

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7, and how reliable are theories without physical evidence, how might you respond?

So Red, do you have an alternate theory for the collapse of WTC 7?

Care to share it with the rest of us?

While you're at it, maybe you can enlighten us your version of events surrounding the Twin Towers,Pentagon and Flight 93 too.

I won't hold my breath.

[16.5]

Does anyone remember of there was a mention in the Jones NT paper, or somewhere else, about another lab conducting a parallel study of the chips? If so ask when we will see this research and if it will be published in a real journal.

Also, who will be on the debunking side? I didn't see any concrete references here or in the other thread; aside from DT.

Yes they sent a sample to another truther in France who could not replicate the results.

He claimed that his package was tampered with... rolls eyes...

But Red would point out that is simply low hanging fruit, right Dame Red?

[grandmastershek]

Yes they sent a sample to another truther in France who could not replicate the results.

He claimed that his package was tampered with... rolls eyes...

But Red would point out that is simply low hanging fruit, right Dame Red?

Right, I found the quote. Apparently another guy in NH was on it as well. Similar excuse?

"Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers."

[bill smith]

Thanks for the tips! Keep 'em coming.

You can get an idea of my approach from the NMSR 9-11 page (http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm).

Cheers, Dave
I think you should ask Harrit if the core columns ( which were all hollow) could have had the nanothermite pumped inside them. Ask him if the many tons he posits could have been hidden in this way until ignition.

[GlennB]

I think you should ask Harrit if the core columns ( which were all hollow) .....

Better not. They weren't all hollow.

"Core columns were primarily rolled wide-flange shapes of grade 36 or 50 steel. As the loads increased towards the base of the building, many of these column sizes were increased through the use of built-up shapes."

[bill smith]

Better not. They weren't all hollow.

"Core columns were primarily rolled wide-flange shapes of grade 36 or 50 steel. As the loads increased towards the base of the building, many of these column sizes were increased through the use of built-up shapes."

The very bases were stiffened with an additional centre plate but for the rest they were hollow up to the 88th floor.

[GlennB]

The very bases were stiffened with an additional centre plate but for the rest they were hollow up to the 88th floor.

Ah I thought we were discussing WTC7.

Anyhoo (i) - 84th floor already mostly transitioned to flange type, and note the floor at which transition takes place.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/corefloorlayout.jpg

Anyhoo (ii) - stuffing thermite down the middle of WTC1+2 core box columns wouldn't be very bright. It would all fall down to the bottom.

[bill smith]

Ah I thought we were discussing WTC7.

Anyhoo (i) - 84th floor already mostly transitioned to flange type, and note the floor at which transition takes place.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/corefloorlayout.jpg

Anyhoo (ii) - stuffing thermite down the middle of WTC1+2 core box columns wouldn't be very bright. It would all fall down to the bottom.

True. and you could fill selected columns right up to the 88th floor if you wanted. Even if you thinned out the core columns by entirely melting say one third of the entire core column structure the building would still stand. (The core had a factor of safety of 3 or more) And if you sequenced the melt fom bottom to top the melted steel would all drain down into the basement where it would remain bubbling for say ....Oh....three or four months.

[GlennB]

And if you sequenced the melt fom bottom to top the melted steel would all drain down into the basement where it would remain bubbling for say ....Oh....three or four months.

Except then the building would have collapsed from the bottom. Whoops.

Why do you bother posting your nonsense?

[DGM]

Bill:
You do realize that the core columns were actual seen after the collapse?



:o







http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744ba3d44d08b89.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19470)

[bill smith]

given that this thread is largely to give tips to members of the jref team in the matter of the coast-to-coast debate I think I should be allowed to pass on potential ideas to members of the other side who may well be monitoring this thread.

I think the Truth team should ask the jref members about the crumbling core- or what appeared to be the crumbling core..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- not straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if those standing remnants were not made of steel then what were they made of ?

There is only one possible candidate.They can only have been ossified fireprooofing. Remember the famous Dr. Astaneh-Asl who examined some of the WTC fireproofing and appeared to be quite surprised at it's glassy texture ? Nice tubes for the melted steel to flow through down into the basements no doubt.

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

[bill smith]

Except then the building would have collapsed from the bottom. Whoops.

Why do you bother posting your nonsense?

Sorry, no it wouldn't.This was only one third of the core columns and the other two-thirds would have held the building up satisfactorily with a factor of safety for the core of three, Then they began the top-down demolition of the rest.

[DGM]

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if they were not made of steel then what were they ?

.



I'm done.

[16.5]

given that this thread is largely to give tips to members of the jref team in the matter of the coast-to-coast debate I think I should be allowed to pass on potential ideas to members of the other side who may well be monitoring this thread.

I think the Truth team should ask the jref members about the crumbling core- or what appeared to be the crumbling core..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if they were not made of steel then what were they ?

They can only have been ossified fireprooofing. Remember the famous Dr. Astaneh-Asl who examined some of the WTC fireproofing and appeared to be quite surprised at it's glassy texture. Nice tubes for the melted steel to flow through down into the basements no doubt.

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

Bill, I think it is more than fair that you pass your ideas on the Truthers who will be proving the inside jobby job. In fact, we insist on it. And if they don't adopt your opinions, well god damnit, those nasty truther are in on it too.

[bill smith]

Bill, I think it is more than fair that you pass your ideas on the Truthers who will be proving the inside jobby job. In fact, we insist on it. And if they don't adopt your opinions, well god damnit, those nasty truther are in on it too.

Can't say fairer than that..

[twinstead]

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

convincingly to whom? You? Or somebody who actually matters?

[bill smith]

convincingly to whom? You? Or somebody who actually matters?

Just little old me and the rest of the world.

[fess]

True. and you could fill selected columns right up to the 88th floor if you wanted. Even if you thinned out the core columns by entirely melting say one third of the entire core column structure the building would still stand. (The core had a factor of safety of 3 or more) And if you sequenced the melt fom bottom to top the melted steel would all drain down into the basement where it would remain bubbling for say ....Oh....three or four months.
That could have been more than difficult.


http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/911/DSCN0945_hires.jpg

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That could have been more than difficult.


http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/911/DSCN0945_hires.jpg

The difficulty is in getting him to acknowledge it.

If anyone wants to prove waterboarding actually works, using it to get a truther to acknowledge evidence they've been shown would be the ultimate test. They've resisted everything else.

[fess]

given that this thread is largely to give tips to members of the jref team in the matter of the coast-to-coast debate I think I should be allowed to pass on potential ideas to members of the other side who may well be monitoring this thread.
Sounds fair to me.

Remember the famous Dr. Astaneh-Asl who examined some of the WTC fireproofing and appeared to be quite surprised at it's glassy texture ? Nice tubes for the melted steel to flow through down into the basements no doubt.
The only answer I can come up with is; you have to be kidding... right?

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.
If they could stop laughing long enough, yes, it would be interesting.

[The Almond]

I think you should ask Harrit if the core columns ( which were all hollow) could have had the nanothermite pumped inside them. Ask him if the many tons he posits could have been hidden in this way until ignition.

This is actually a fantastic debate method. Dave, you get Harrit/Jones to agree that nanothermite was used exclusively in the destruction of the towers, and then ask Gage to explain how the nanothermite caused steel beams to fling out from the collapse front. Since Gage says that's proof of explosives being used, you could potentially get the truthers arguing with each other, and then go out and drink beer instead of wasting time.

[Oystein]

The difficulty is in getting him to acknowledge it.

If anyone wants to prove waterboarding actually works, using it to get a truther to acknowledge evidence they've been shown would be the ultimate test. They've resisted everything else.

Oh how many times have I had sweet dreams like that... :boggled:

[bill smith]

So the poor jref team doesn't seem to be getting a lot of tips right now. They will have to go out there and be made fools of by Richard Gage's Truth Team at this rate

Come on guys....lend a hand or watch your colleagues crash and burn on the coast-to-coast debate...

[grandmastershek]

So the poor jref team doesn't seem to be getting a lot of tips right now. They will have to go out there and be made fools of by Richard Gage's Truth Team at this rate

Come on guys....lend a hand or watch your colleagues crash and burn on the coast-to-coast debate...

the only way richard gage could make someone else look like a fool is for that person to find something more ridiculous than cardboard boxes to simulate the WTC. and i pretty sure heiwa covered all of those already.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So the poor jref team doesn't seem to be getting a lot of tips right now. They will have to go out there and be made fools of by Richard Gage's Truth Team at this rate

Come on guys....lend a hand or watch your colleagues crash and burn on the coast-to-coast debate...

Until Richard Gage goes to the hair clinic, I won't take him seriously.

[bill smith]

the only way richard gage could make someone else look like a fool is for that person to find something more ridiculous than cardboard boxes to simulate the WTC. and i pretty sure heiwa covered all of those already.

The last run-in that Richard Gage had with the jref was with one of your elite top guns. No less than the debunking director himself (the former debunking director that is ) So on the strength of that we are keenly anticipating the next encounter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY&feature=player_embedded

[marplots]

Is this debate going to happen? When?

[bill smith]

Is this debate going to happen? When?

It's pencilled in for the end of the month I believe.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Any thoughts on the photograph Fess provided, Bill?

How is your magic thermite going to flow through columns that have ben sealed and riveted at both ends?

[bill smith]

Any thoughts on the photograph Fess provided, Bill?

How is your magic thermite going to flow through columns that have ben sealed and riveted at both ends?

No problem. Each section is individually filled. When that nenothermite ignites the steel nelts instantly plates and all.

In WTC2 I think there was a problem where there was a blackage around the 82nd floor when the melted steel coming from above was impeded ,broke the fireproofing sheath and some of it flowed accross the floor and out the window as we all saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

[DaveThomasNMSR]

No problem. Each section is individually filled. When that nenothermite ignites the steel nelts instantly plates and all.

In WTC2 I think there was a problem where there was a blackage around the 82nd floor when the melted steel coming from above was impeded ,broke the fireproofing sheath and some of it flowed accross the floor and out the window as we all saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE


So Bill - how do you know this was melted steel, and not melted aluminum from the airplane fuselage? (I'm presuming you might know that aluminum melts at much lower temperatures than steel...)

Just curious ...
Dave

[bill smith]

So Bill - how do you know this was melted steel, and not melted aluminum from the airplane fuselage? (I'm presuming you might know that aluminum melts at much lower temperatures than steel...)

Just curious ...
Dave

I doubt it. The plane would have beeen in a million widely dispersed pieces and this looked like a large spreading pool that eventually pushed some molten steel out the window.

But you are free to believe it was the aluminium if you want.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I doubt it. The plane would have beeen in a million widely dispersed pieces and this looked like a large spreading pool that eventually pushed some molten steel out the window.

But you are free to believe it was the aluminium if you want.

Likewise, you are free to answer the question I asked, and provide even one scrap of evidence that this was flowing steel.

If you want.

Just so we're clear, "I doubt it" is not considered Evidence, but rather Opinion.

Dave

[bill smith]

Likewise, you are free to answer the question I asked, and provide even one scrap of evidence that this was flowing steel.

If you want.

Just so we're clear, "I doubt it" is not considered Evidence, but rather Opinion.

Dave

I don't do those pointless arguments about whether it was steel or aluminium any more. I just go on the likelihood,

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I don't do those pointless arguments about whether it was steel or aluminium any more. I just go on the likelihood,

I understand completely. Why bother with facts when you can just BS?
:jaw-dropp

[bill smith]

So Bill - how do you know this was melted steel, and not melted aluminum from the airplane fuselage? (I'm presuming you might know that aluminum melts at much lower temperatures than steel...)

Just curious ...
Dave

I was just thinking....if the Pentagon plane was entirely consumed by the fire then so was the plane that hit WTC2.

In that case the flowing metal had to be steel unless you want to start digging very deep. The Readers are watching....

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I understand completely. Why bother with facts when you can just BS?
:jaw-dropp

Hey, even your initials are "BS".

Could it be... Poe?

:D

[bill smith]

Hey, even your initials are "BS".

Could it be... Poe?

:D

Accidental maybe...

[Grizzly Bear]

No not fraudulent, just highly speculative, without any commensurate physical evidence to support a very audacious hypothesis.
It's a fact that the properties of the steel used in the building's construction are very well known and documented. I truly hope you're not suggesting the documentation itself is speculative, because I can tell you straight off it's not.

[RedIbis]

It's a fact that the properties of the steel used in the building's construction are very well known and documented. I truly hope you're not suggesting the documentation itself is speculative, because I can tell you straight off it's not.

No, that's not what I was saying. I'm pretty sure "the properties of the steel used in the building's construction are very well known and documented."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I doubt it.

Argument from incredulity.

The plane would have beeen in a million widely dispersed pieces and this looked like a large spreading pool that eventually pushed some molten steel out the window.

Bare assertion fallacy.

But you are free to believe it was the aluminium if you want.

Yes, we can. No one has ever given us a reason not to.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I was just thinking....if the Pentagon plane was entirely consumed by the fire then so was the plane that hit WTC2.

In that case the flowing metal had to be steel unless you want to start digging very deep. The Readers are watching....

Oh, this is a very hard one... let's see...

If you look at your YouTube link (back on page 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE)), especially seconds 55-58, you can see that the "liquid steel" is clearly on the northeast corner of WTC 2 (South Tower), which was hit by United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. (Note how the east-facing sides of both towers are gleaming in the morning sun.)

Now, if you check out this diagram/map of the planes and towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_%28graphic%29.png), it clearly shows that Flight 175 hit the south side of WTC2, and ended up ... in the northeast corner of the tower.

So the pieces of the plane, even if there were thousands, ended up burning on the floor in the NE corner of WTC2.

What's this "consuming" you're prattling about, anyway? The aluminum would not be "consumed", but would indeed melt at temperatures at or above 660 centigrade (1220 Fahrenheit) (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html).

So, you've got a thousand liquid puddles of aluminum, on a floor that is being pulled into a bowl shape by heated and sagging floor trusses.

Would would all that aluminum do?

Why, it would coagulate into one big, heavy pond of liquid aluminum, and then suddenly pour out onto the street when the floor started to give way.

And that's the explanation of the "liquid metal."

There's no reason to suppose that metal was steel besides your lame insistence it was.

So go ahead, convince us it was steel. :s2:

Dave

[bill smith]

Oh, this is a very hard one... let's see...

If you look at your YouTube link (back on page 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE)), especially seconds 55-58, you can see that the "liquid steel" is clearly on the northeast corner of WTC 2 (South Tower), which was hit by United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m. (Note how the east-facing sides of both towers are gleaming in the morning sun.)

Now, if you check out this diagram/map of the planes and towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_%28graphic%29.png), it clearly shows that Flight 175 hit the south side of WTC2, and ended up ... in the northeast corner of the tower.

So the pieces of the plane, even if there were thousands, ended up burning on the floor in the NE corner of WTC2.

What's this "consuming" you're prattling about, anyway? The aluminum would not be "consumed", but would indeed melt at temperatures at or above 660 centigrade (1220 Fahrenheit) (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html).

So, you've got a thousand liquid puddles of aluminum, on a floor that is being pulled into a bowl shape by heated and sagging floor trusses.

Would would all that aluminum do?

Why, it would coagulate into one big, heavy pond of liquid aluminum, and then suddenly pour out onto the street when the floor started to give way.

And that's the explanation of the "liquid metal."

There's no reason to suppose that metal was steel besides your lame insistence it was.

So go ahead, convince us it was steel. :s2:

Dave

I already told you. I don't waste time pointlessly arguing it these days. I just lay out my case and trust Readers to use their own judgement.

[riptowtan]

There is no way that nanothermite, superthermite or explosives could create molten pools of steel. Even if they could, how would the steel remain molten for several weeks?

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

In WTC2 I think there was a problem where there was a blackage around the 82nd floor when the melted steel coming from above was impeded ,broke the fireproofing sheath and some of it flowed accross the floor and out the window as we all saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

Oh man, not again.

To summarize:
1. You have zero evidence, that this is liquid steel. zero, niente, nada, nullo...
2. If this is liquid steel, why is the rest of the building around it not giving a ****** It should be at least glow red. Or is it magical liquid steel, that doesn't give its huge amounts of heat to its environment?
3. Henry62 already figured out, that this could be the UPS Generator, because that was on the same floor. (http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html)
Also there was no other incident like this, again, you are just cherry picking the cases that fit your fantasy and ignoring the fact, that this was the only event of this kind. So did they just melt the steel in that spot, to blow up the three buildings? Hmm, looks like we are back to magical super-ultra-nano-thermate.
4. Oh my god, there is something that glows exactly like this floating out of the Windsor Tower in Madrid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA&fmt=18), I guess that was an inside job too. The Illuminuti are everywhere, we all gonna die!

There is no way that nanothermite, superthermite or explosives could create molten pools of steel. Even if they could, how would the steel remain molten for several weeks?

It can, because its magical! Isn't that obvious?

[bill smith]

There is no way that nanothermite, superthermite or explosives could create molten pools of steel. Even if they could, how would the steel remain molten for several weeks?

If the pool of molten steel was large enough then it would stay molten for months. Steel cools from the putside in in little flecks on the surface that slowly join up to create a skin. I guess that the pool was 10-15,000 tons in weight after approximately one third of the core columns had been melted and drained down into the basement.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If the pool of molten steel was large enough then it would stay molten for months. Steel cools from the putside in in little flecks on the surface that slowly join up to create a skin. I guess that the pool was 10-15,000 tons in weight after approximately one third of the core columns had been melted and drained down into the basement.

You'll be backing up this claim by showing us exactly when and where a puddle of molten steel twice the size of a US Navy destroyer was found, of course?

[bill smith]

So how's the jref team shaping up then ? So far we have Dave and I imagine Triforcharity as I think I heard him on a previous radio debate. What about giving Gravy another shot at Richard Gage after the last disaster ? ( Video and comments available)

[DaveThomasNMSR]

So how's the jref team shaping up then ? So far we have Dave and I imagine Triforcharity as I think I heard him on a previous radio debate. What about giving Gravy another shot at Richard Gage after the last disaster ? ( Video and comments available)

It's actually pretty hilarious. Gage is trying to micromanage the whole four hours down-to-the-minute, and get his team of 5 experts coming in at various moments.

Ian Punnett has told Gage that he doesn't tell Gage how to design buildings, and has asked Gage why he's telling him (Punnett) how to structure a radio show.

It's pretty comical. I imagine the Keystone Cops would be better organized than Gage and crew. I still don't know who his second will be, but Punnett is telling him to pick One, and be done with it.

I asked Zdenek Bazant if he wanted to be on our team, but he declined. However, I don't think he would have been as effective at all the political/polemic truther tactics as will be my co-debater, physicist Kim Johnson of NMSR (http://www.nmsr.org/mkjrept.htm), who co-hosted our science radio show with me for four years.

The debate is not going to be pretty, Bill. It's just three weeks until the truther movement's demise. You heard it here first. Gage, Jones, Chandler, Griffin, Harritt, et. al. -- they are goin' down.


I already told you. I don't waste time pointlessly arguing it these days. I just lay out my case and trust Readers to use their own judgement.

They will. And you are clearly pointless. And a lousy speller to boot.

Dave

[bill smith]

It's actually pretty hilarious. Gage is trying to micromanage the whole four hours down-to-the-minute, and get his team of 5 experts coming in at various moments.

Ian Punnett has told Gage that he doesn't tell Gage how to design buildings, and has asked Gage why he's telling him (Punnett) how to structure a radio show.

It's pretty comical. I imagine the Keystone Cops would be better organized than Gage and crew. I still don't know who his second will be, but Punnett is telling him to pick One, and be done with it.

I asked Zdenek Bazant if he wanted to be on our team, but he declined. However, I don't think he would have been as effective at all the political/polemic truther tactics as will be my co-debater, physicist Kim Johnson of NMSR (http://www.nmsr.org/mkjrept.htm), who co-hosted our science radio show with me for four years.

The debate is not going to be pretty, Bill. It's just three weeks until the truther movement's demise. You heard it here first. Gage, Jones, Chandler, Griffin, Harritt, et. al. -- they are goin' down.



They will. And you are clearly pointless. And a lousy speller to boot.

Dave

Actually I am reasonably sure the the jref 9/11 section will be shut down if you don't get this right. As you know the idea has been floated a number of times already. You are becoming a liability. So a lot hangs on this.

It's a shame that Bazant shied off but what did you expect ? I mean Heiwa might be on the other side and that would be sure to cook Bazant's goose.

So for the rest let's have a nice clean fight and may the Truth about 9/11 win.

[Edx]

I mean Heiwa might be on the other side and that would be sure to cook Bazant's goose.
.

HAHAHA The BEST thing would be if Heiwa were on the truther's side, then all you have to do is get him to explain all his crazy beliefs, like no planes and so on.

[Edx]

If the pool of molten steel was large enough then it would stay molten for months.

Still requires enough energy to make it molten Bill, so how much thermite do you think was in the towers?

Oh and I think Sword_Of_Truth asked you a question:
You'll be backing up this claim by showing us exactly when and where a puddle of molten steel twice the size of a US Navy destroyer was found, of course?

[DGM]

Still requires enough energy to make it molten Bill, so how much thermite do you think was in the towers?

Oh and I think Sword_Of_Truth asked you a question:
You'll be backing up this claim by showing us exactly when and where a puddle of molten steel twice the size of a US Navy destroyer was found, of course?
It's a fantasy to believe it would stay molten for months. Get him to explain that with a few numbers. I bet he runs.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Actually I am reasonably sure the the jref 9/11 section will be shut down if you don't get this right. As you know the idea has been floated a number of times already. You are becoming a liability. So a lot hangs on this.

It's a shame that Bazant shied off but what did you expect ? I mean Heiwa might be on the other side and that would be sure to cook Bazant's goose.

So for the rest let's have a nice clean fight and may the Truth about 9/11 win.


Heiwa cooking Bazant's goose? :jaw-dropp:D:o:p:confused::boggled::eye-poppi

Gage wanted at least four additional team members on the show, and has been told to pick ONE. So I imagine his partner will be one of Kevin Ryan (chem.), Michael Donly (P.E.), Niels Harrit (chem.), or Erik Lawyer (Firefighter)

[bill smith]

Still requires enough energy to make it molten Bill, so how much thermite do you think was in the towers?

Oh and I think Sword_Of_Truth asked you a question:
You'll be backing up this claim by showing us exactly when and where a puddle of molten steel twice the size of a US Navy destroyer was found, of course?

I am not familiar with these 5-7,500 ton Destroyers you guys are talking about. What class are they ?

[Edx]

I am not familiar with these 5-7,500 ton Destroyers you guys are talking about. What class are they ?

I believe he was just giving a sense of scale to your claim of how much molten steel there was. So how 'bout an answer?

[bill smith]

Heiwa cooking Bazant's goose? :jaw-dropp:D:o:p:confused::boggled::eye-poppi

Gage wanted at least four additional team members on the show, and has been told to pick ONE. So I imagine his partner will be one of Kevin Ryan (chem.), Michael Donly (P.E.), Niels Harrit (chem.), or Erik Lawyer (Firefighter)

So I guess you would have had to scale back too. You would have had to drop either Bazant or Kim. Were you as surprised as Richard when you were told that you wouldn't be able to bring on all the experts you wanted too ?

[DaveThomasNMSR]

So I guess you would have had to scale back too. You would have had to drop either Bazant or Kim. Were you as surprised as Richard when you were told that you wouldn't be able to bring on all the experts you wanted too ?

No. It's Gage who needs to game the system to prop up his non-existent case. All I've got going for me are the facts, the evidence, and the laws of chemistry and physics. Oh yeah - and Truther measurements (Chandler) that help disprove Truther shlock physics.

:D

[tsig]

I already told you. I don't waste time pointlessly arguing it these days. I just lay out my case and trust Readers to use their own judgement.

Bill, you'd do better to address those who are actually posting rather than some probable Readers.

[tsig]

If the pool of molten steel was large enough then it would stay molten for months. Steel cools from the putside in in little flecks on the surface that slowly join up to create a skin. I guess that the pool was 10-15,000 tons in weight after approximately one third of the core columns had been melted and drained down into the basement.

What happened to that 15,000 ton ingot?

[bill smith]

What happened to that 15,000 ton ingot?
If you have the equipment to detect a very large magnetic anomaly you might find that it is still there. Or it may have been cut out with thermic lances.

[Dog Town]

Actually I am reasonably sure ...

Yep, it's a fiver!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

The number one reason this sub forum will remain open:

#1. The lulz!
Thank you BS, I needed a good laugh today. Priceless...

[bill smith]

It's a fantasy to believe it would stay molten for months. Get him to explain that with a few numbers. I bet he runs.

Hi DGM. Remember this post in the hyperlink ? If I am right- and I don't see how I can not be- then that is total validation of my steel flowing into the basements theory. And apart from that I have several other confirmations some of which I may explain presently.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6106939&postcount=95

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If you have the equipment to detect a very large magnetic anomaly you might find that it is still there. Or it may have been cut out with thermic lances.

The same way the Hoover Damn was built with just a backhoe and a couple of cement trucks. :rolleyes:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am not familiar with these 5-7,500 ton Destroyers you guys are talking about. What class are they ?

The Spruance Class and the first production block of the Arleigh Burke class came in at ~8,000 tons.

Now can you show us a US Navy destroyer-sized congealed slag puddle or what?

[DGM]

If I am right- and I don't see how I can not be-

Well there's your problem. :rolleyes:


Why don't you show us some numbers explaining how your pool of steel stayed molten for months. I don't want a UTube video of some misquote saying there was "rivers" of steel. I want numbers (you know x amount of energy needed to remain liquid - heat loss.....ECT).

You can do it, Just ask all your "scientists". :p

Bill, It's been 9 years! Certainly with your collection of minds you could prove something by now.

[bill smith]

Well there's your problem. :rolleyes:


Why don't you show us some numbers explaining how your pool of steel stayed molten for months. I don't want a UTube video of some misquote saying there was "rivers" of steel. I want numbers (you know x amount of energy needed to remain liquid - heat loss.....ECT).

You can do it, Just ask all your "scientists". :p

Bill, It's been 9 years! Certainly with your collection of minds you could prove something by now.

See the Physicist Steven Jones for the numbers if you need them.

[DGM]

See the Physicist Steven Jones for the numbers if you need them.
He's never done anything to support your "theory". Try again.

[bill smith]

No. It's Gage who needs to game the system to prop up his non-existent case. All I've got going for me are the facts, the evidence, and the laws of chemistry and physics. Oh yeah - and Truther measurements (Chandler) that help disprove Truther shlock physics.

:D

Well I wish you luck. You will need it if you are to save the jref 9/11 subforum. I would say that Richard Gage has about a 70% success rate at winning these debates. So the odds are against you and the survival of the jref 9/11 subforum.

[DGM]

Well I wish you luck. You will need it if you are to save the jref 9/11 subforum. I would say that Richard Gage has about a 70% success rate at winning these debates. So the odds are against you and the survival of the jref 9/11 subforum.
OK I'll bite. How does his success have anything to do with our making fun of "truthers"? This is what this sub-forums' about, you do know this? Don't you? I hope so.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

OK I'll bite. How does his success have anything to do with our making fun of "truthers"? This is what this sub-forums' about, you do know this? Don't you? I hope so.

I'm wondering why BS thinks he has any say or sway over these forums. Who put him in charge?

:D

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I'm wondering why BS thinks he has any say or sway over these forums. Who put him in charge?

:D

Only 10 more posts till I get my own avatar! Thanks BS.
:D

[DGM]

Only 10 more posts till I get my own avatar! Thanks BS.
:D
Keep this up and you'll be there in no time.

:rolleyes:

[Edx]

Only 10 more posts till I get my own avatar! Thanks BS.
:D

Hey Dave,

Stundie ( I believe he has a reputation here) replied to your post over at Wu's forum.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=30#p15463

I replied to him here, in case you're interested:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=40#p15485

It would be funny if these were the kinds of things Gage talked about as a defence to your points.

[bill smith]

Hey Dave,

Stundie ( I believe he has a reputation here) replied to your post over at Wu's forum.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=30#p15463

I replied to him here, in case you're interested:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=40#p15485

It would be funny if these were the kinds of things Gage talked about as a defence to your points.

Did I see that Dave Thomas is a former Truther on that forum ? Were you ?

[T.A.M.]

I already told you. I don't waste time pointlessly arguing it these days. I just lay out my case and trust Readers to use their own judgement.

No, what you do is the following,

1. Cherry pick selected quotes or bits of articles that SEEM to prove or support your case.
2. You rely on the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE that your "readers" possess to insure they do not do the proper research on your crap to reveal it as that...CRAP.

Come on, at least be honest.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

If the pool of molten steel was large enough then it would stay molten for months. Steel cools from the putside in in little flecks on the surface that slowly join up to create a skin. I guess that the pool was 10-15,000 tons in weight after approximately one third of the core columns had been melted and drained down into the basement.

lol...OMG, please tell me you are not trying to tell us that a full 33% of the entire Column steel was melted into a pool of liquid steel.

Really? Really?

Oh thank god you are back BS, the place was becoming rather dull.

TAM:D

[bill smith]

lol...OMG, please tell me you are not trying to tell us that a full 33% of the entire Column steel was melted into a pool of liquid steel.

Really? Really?

Oh thank god you are back BS, the place was becoming rather dull.



TAM:D

Did you check post 147 TAM ?

[Edx]

Did I see that Dave Thomas is a former Truther on that forum ? Were you ?

huh?

Dave Thomas has not posted to that forum, stundie is quoting a post Dave made here. I am Edx there as well and I was the one who said I am a former truther.

I am both amazed you read that far and amazed you still understood everything so badly.

[bill smith]

No, what you do is the following,

1. Cherry pick selected quotes or bits of articles that SEEM to prove or support your case.
2. You rely on the LACK OF KNOWLEDGE that your "readers" possess to insure they do not do the proper research on your crap to reveal it as that...CRAP.

Come on, at least be honest.

TAM:)

Removed breach of Rule 12. Stop it.

[bill smith]

huh?

Dave Thomas has not posted to that forum, stundie is quoting a post Dave made here. I am Edx there as well and I was the one who said I am a former truther.

I am both amazed you read that far and amazed you still understood everything so badly.

I just had a quick scan and thought that either he or someone else had mentioned that he is a former Truther.

[Edx]

I just had a quick scan and thought that either he or someone else had mentioned that he is a former Truther.

Again Im pretty sure you're thinking about me, I said that

[Sword_Of_Truth]

See the Physicist Steven Jones for the numbers if you need them.

He doesn't have them either.

Imagine how different the world would be today if he did?

[Dog Town]

Did you check post 147 TAM ?
146 is better!

[Brainster]

Dave, you might find this presentation that Gage gave at Sonoma State (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#) in 2007 interesting. Gage shows much more willingness to speculate about things. For example, about 29:40 he claims that insurance companies raised their premiums 2000 percent after the terrorist attacks, implying that this was the reason they paid out their claims on the 9-11 insurance.

I review financial statements on commercial properties routinely and the idea of a 21-fold increase in insurance costs was risible. In fact, I was able to find out (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/richard-gage-aia-and-crackpot.html) that even in New York City itself, the premium rises were about 70% on "trophy" properties that might be considered prime terrorist targets, and even on those projects the premium cost had pretty much declined back to pre-9/11 levels by 2006.

Gage also uses Sofia Shafquat's 9/11 Mysteries for much of his "lecture". Sofia credits Holocaust Denier Eric Hufschmid for turning her on to 9-11 "Truth", and used to sell the Ernst Zundel Story on her website.

Obviously he's a little more polished than back then. Still selling the same old steaming pile, although he's tried to avoid the "theories".

[bill smith]

Very interesting movie that. At around the 19:45 mark Richard Gage mentions that the investigation of WTC7 was put out to tender and 'a proposal was successfully negotiated with Applied Research Associates' but with the proviso that they not examine floors one through seven or floor 47. Can that be true ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1# Gage 2007

[jhunter1163]

Very interesting movie that. At around the 19:45 mark Richard Gage mentions that the investigation of WTC7 was put out to tender and 'a proposal was successfully negotiated with Applied Research Associates' but with the proviso that they not examine floors one through seven or floor 47. Can that be true ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1# Gage 2007

Given Box Boy's overall credibility, I seriously doubt that it's true.

[bill smith]

Given Box Boy's overall credibility, I seriously doubt that it's true.

His credibilty seems to run at about 90% at his presentations which is all that really matters when you think about it.. I can imagine that the perps and their associates might not see it the same way.

[Edx]

His credibilty seems to run at about 90% at his presentations which is all that really matters when you think about it.. I can imagine that the perps and their associates might not see it the same way.

Gage doesnt even understand that explosives go boom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk

[DGM]

Very interesting movie that. At around the 19:45 mark Richard Gage mentions that the investigation of WTC7 was put out to tender and 'a proposal was successfully negotiated with Applied Research Associates' but with the proviso that they not examine floors one through seven or floor 47. Can that be true ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6883441047197474365&q=Richard+Gage&total=79&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1# Gage 2007
Like most of Gage's statements there is a hint of truth. What he doesn't cover is why they were only to focus on that area. They were tasked to help build the model from the floor 7 load transfer system up. They were hired simply to take up some of NIST's work load.

[bill smith]

Like most of Gage's statements there is a hint of truth. What he doesn't cover is why they were only to focus on that area. They were tasked to help build the model from the floor 7 load transfer system up. They were hired simply to take up some of NIST's work load.

Do you have any links to credible sites with detailled information on that ?

[DGM]

Do you have any links to credible sites with detailled information on that ?
Do you consider the NIST site to be credible?

Does it make any sense to you that NIST (who I presume you think is "in on it") to hire people and publish that they "can't look here". Come on Bill.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

His credibilty seems to run at about 90% at his presentations which is all that really matters when you think about it.

That's because his presentations are all preaching to the choir. I've been on the political fringes before. And while we could get 100 people to show up at a meeting, and we'd pat each other and ourselves on the back, congratulating each other for the big turnout and what it meant for our impending victory, it would always be the same one hundred people who showed up. Just by the fact that Gage advertises his appearances with references to "9/11 truth" garantees that the audience is the same bunch of dumbasses who have been leaning this way for years or decades.

A couple years back, I went to a 9/11 twoof gathering addressed by Kevin "the Holocaust is a Myth" Barret at the invitation of one of my old contacts. And while the attendance easily broke the triple digit barrier, which is impressive for a twoof gathering, guess which 100 people it was who showed up?

I can imagine that the perps and their associates might not see it the same way.

Yes, "the perps" are very annoyed at people like Gage.

Q_OIXfkXEj0

[DGM]

Bill:

Have you looked into the source of Gage's claim?

[bill smith]

His credibilty seems to run at about 90% at his presentations which is all that really matters when you think about it.. I can imagine that the perps and their associates might not see it the same way.

I think WTC7 went down almost silently. Or at least without the overt sounds of explosions. This is 100% consistent with my theory that many of the the hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite in it's purely incendiary form. There is another incarnation of nanothermite with added olymers that make it into a high explosive but I doubt that this form was used in the demolition of WTC7.

In the Twin Towers high explosives were used nearer the tops of the building and caused the flying steel we all saw. This was not true of the rest of the building and can be observed in any video. Im sure I have a suitable one if you need it.

[bill smith]

Do you consider the NIST site to be credible?

Does it make any sense to you that NIST (who I presume you think is "in on it") to hire people and publish that they "can't look here". Come on Bill.

Can I have a link to the specific topic in the NIST site ? The readers may be watching to see if you have got it DGM.

[DGM]

Can I have a link to the specific topic in the NIST site ? The readers may be watching to see if you have got it DGM.
I doubt it but, this should get you started.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

Now if you want me to narrow it down even further tell us where Gage got his info.

[bill smith]

That's because his presentations are all preaching to the choir. I've been on the political fringes before. And while we could get 100 people to show up at a meeting, and we'd pat each other and ourselves on the back, congratulating each other for the big turnout and what it meant for our impending victory, it would always be the same one hundred people who showed up. Just by the fact that Gage advertises his appearances with references to "9/11 truth" garantees that the audience is the same bunch of dumbasses who have been leaning this way for years or decades.

A couple years back, I went to a 9/11 twoof gathering addressed by Kevin "the Holocaust is a Myth" Barret at the invitation of one of my old contacts. And while the attendance easily broke the triple digit barrier, which is impressive for a twoof gathering, guess which 100 people it was who showed up?



Yes, "the perps" are very annoyed at people like Gage.

Q_OIXfkXEj0

I am afraid not. The Readers should be aware that Richard Gage and his 1200-plus professional architects and engineers aim themselves squarely at other engineers and architects. Their organisation has grown from a membership of one in 2007 to more than 1200 today.

Readers should be careful of being misled by debunkers who will try almost aanything at this late stage.

Anyway, the attached is about ae911truth.org doing what they typically do only this time on their 19-country Truth tour of Europe.

'' Spain- Tele 5 Mainstream broadcast about Richard Gage's conference with english subtitles:

Thanks to the conference by Richard Gage, AIA here in Madrid's Colegio Oficial de Arquitectura, on Nov 7, th, this is the first time that 911 truth has been shown on mainstream media here in Spain. The conference was packed and the Colegio, which is the oficial "Guild" for architects here in spain has requested several copies of the video conference. This is the recording of the news item shown at midday on the 8th of November which was seen nation wide, with english subtitles.''

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5652298545742902173&hl=es Mainstream News

[DGM]

I am afraid not. The Readers should be aware that Richard Gage and his 1200-plus professional architacts and engineers aim themselves squarely at other engineers and architects. Their organisation has grown from a membership of one in 2007 to more than 1200 today.

Readers should be careful of being misled by debunkers who will try almost aanything at this late stage.

Anyway, the attached is about ae911truth.org doing what they typically do only this time on their 19-country Truth tour of Europe.

'' Spain- Tele 5 Mainstream broadcast about Richard Gage's conference with english subtitles:

Thanks to the conference by Richard Gage, AIA here in Madrid's Colegio Oficial de Arquitectura, on Nov 7, th, this is the first time that 911 truth has been shown on mainstream media here in Spain. The conference was packed and the Colegio, which is the oficial "Guild" for architects here in spain has requested several copies of the video conference. This is the recording of the news item shown at midday on the 8th of November which was seen nation wide, with english subtitles.''

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5652298545742902173&hl=es Mainstream News
Bill:
Have you been to a Gage show?

I have. In fact, I had to correct him on the number of people attended (which he did).

[bill smith]

I doubt it but, this should get you started.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

Now if you want me to narrow it down even further tell us where Gage got his info.

See Readers ?

[DGM]

See Readers ?
Yes they do see. They see that you want me to "debunk" an un-sourced claim that you accept without question.

Why is that Bill?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am afraid not. The Readers should be aware that Richard Gage and his 1200-plus professional architects and engineers aim themselves squarely at other engineers and architects. Their organisation has grown from a membership of one in 2007 to more than 1200 today.

More than 170,000 fresh engineers are graduated from colleges, universities and tech schools across the US and Canada in a single year. The amount by which the overall population of engineers increased in the time it took AE911T to reach their 1200 is more than 400 times greater than AE911T's growth.

These are added to an existing base of nearly two million engineers.

[DGM]

More than 170,000 fresh engineers are graduated from colleges, universities and tech schools across the US and Canada in a single year.

These are added to an existing base of nearly two million engineers.
That's going to leave a mark!

:D

[bill smith]

More than 170,000 fresh engineers are graduated from colleges, universities and tech schools across the US and Canada in a single year. The amount by which the overall population of engineers increased in the time it took AE911T to reach their 1200 is more than 400 times greater than AE911T's growth.

These are added to an existing base of nearly two million engineers.

Now if we could just get them all to go to Richard Gage's presentations we would find more than 90% of them supporting the controlled demolition theory. That is the normal result at the end of the lectures and has been from pretty well the beginning.

Most engineers have never even thought past the government story as parrotted by the media and as a result they have not examined the specifics for themselves. But just one short lecture from Richard is usually enough for a 100% about-face.

Many will not sign up through being too timid. This is a normal human reaction. Still others will continue to reject the whole notion in a kind of denial.

"Propaganda is not meant to fool the intelligencia, it is merely meant to provide them an excuse to avoid seeing ugly realities they’d sooner not believe.”

Readers....you are in the very midst of that propaganda. And it's not coming from the Truth Movement.

[DGM]

Now if we could just get them all to go to Richard Gage's presentations we would find more than 90% of them supporting the controlled demolition theory. That is the normal result at the end of the lectures and hs has been from pretty well the beginning.

.

What do you base your numbers on? Would that be Gage himself? You don't see a problem with this? The "readers" do.

[Mr.Herbert]

Now if we could just get them all to go to Richard Gage's presentations we would find more than 90% of them supporting the controlled demolition theory. That is the normal result at the end of the lectures and has been from pretty well the beginning.

<snip>

This is horse ****! There were about 74 attendees at the presentation DGM and I attended. I believe there was 1 licensed Engineer in attendance and he disagreed with Gage. Most of the people that attend his **** Show are truthers.

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 and don't change spelling and use symbols etc. to avoid the auto-censor.

[Dog Town]

Many will not sign up through being too timid.
Delusional much? Yes, only twoofers are brave enough!:rolleyes:
Pathetic, is your argument, or lack there of.
Funny though.
Only two today, try harder next time.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

PS
How is Manchester today?

[Edx]

In the Twin Towers high explosives were used nearer the tops of the building and caused the flying steel we all saw. This was not true of the rest of the building and can be observed in any video. Im sure I have a suitable one if you need it.

So why cant we hear them?

Oh yes you believe that obvious fake video to be real, never mind.

[Edx]

Most engineers have never even thought past the government story as parrotted by the media and as a result they have not examined the specifics for themselves. But just one short lecture from Richard is usually enough for a 100% about-face.

Again, why do they have to see a physical presentation by Gage in order to be so convinced? Why isn't their material available online good enough? Does he have a super sexy voice in real life?

[Dog Town]

Does he have a super sexy voice in real life?

No, he has boxes though. Most recent grads will need them to move.

[Edx]

No, he has boxes though. Most recent grads will need them to move.

Maybe if we see the box experiment in real life it makes total sense and that if we watch the same thing online it just looks stupid. :)

[bill smith]

This is horse ****! There were about 74 attendees at the presentation DGM and I attended. I believe there was 1 licensed Engineer in attendance and he disagreed with Gage. Most of the people that attend his **** Show are truthers.

Well most of them certainly seem to be by the time they leave anyway. Not that most of them do anything about it but I bet they sure aren't happy either and the time will come sure as eggs is eggs...

Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.

Remember this ? It applies 100% to this sitiation...

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

--Mark Twain

[Brainster]

I am afraid not. The Readers should be aware that Richard Gage and his 1200-plus professional architects and engineers aim themselves squarely at other engineers and architects. Their organisation has grown from a membership of one in 2007 to more than 1200 today.

Yeah, I learned a bit about one of Gage's engineers (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/07/just-one-of-ae-9-11-troof-engineers.html) the other day:

To powerful Jews and their dupes, the whole truth about 9/11 is like sodomy in the synagogue, exposing it is a million times greater sin than committing it. This analogy inspired by revisionisthistory.org and rediscover911.com.

[DGM]

Bill:
You never answered. Have you seen Gage perform in person? Where do you get his "conversion" numbers from?

[bill smith]

Yeah, I learned a bit about one of Gage's engineers (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/07/just-one-of-ae-9-11-troof-engineers.html) the other day:

Then let's say that 1199-plus degreed and licenced architects are demanding a new and independent 9/11 enquiry from a Congress that is studiously and obviously ignoring them and their degrees. For how long will that be a tenable situation though ? I suggest that the AIA look into why an organisation of 1200 of their members can be ignored in this way. Can all architaects and engineers be ignored like this and for so long without anybody checking their specific complaints other than a bunch of idiots on a social forum ? Is an architecture or engineering degree worth so little ? We will have to look again at how much we pay them I think..

And if an individual happens to be a Holocaust Denier--so what ? What has that got to do with 9/11 ?

[DGM]

Then let's say that 1199-plus degreed and licenced architects are demanding a new and independent 9/11 enquiry from a Congress that is studiously and obviously ignoring them and their degrees. For how long will that be a tenable situation though ?

They have to actually submit their petition before it can be ignored. Any ideas as to why they hold off letting Congress know about this?

Can all architaects and engineers be ignored like this and for so long without anybody checking their specific complaints other than a bunch of idiots on a social forum ?

No.


Is an architecture or engineering degree worth so little ?

No


We will have to look again at how much we pay them I think..

Are you guy's paying them for their opinions? Do tell.

[beachnut]

Only idiots fall for Gages moronic lies, and Gage is compiling a list of idiots dumb enough to sign up for his fraud. How much money has bill smith sent Gage so Gage can travel and spread idiotic lies?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

then let's say that 1199-plus degreed and licenced architects are demanding a new and independent 9/11 enquiry from a congress that is studiously and obviously ignoring them and their degrees. For how long will that be a tenable situation though ?

2,000,000 - 1,199 = 1,998,801

[Sword_Of_Truth]

More than 170,000 fresh engineers are graduated from colleges, universities and tech schools across the US and Canada in a single year.

These are added to an existing base of nearly two million engineers.That's going to leave a mark!

:D

It would, except that I screwed it up.

That 170,000 isn't just one year. I misread the US Dept of Labor stats on engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), it's actually the increase over a ten year period.

So the number of newly minted engineers in a year is only fourteen times bigger than Gages entire fan club rather than 140.

My bad. :(

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Now if we could just get them all to go to Richard Gage's presentations we would find more than 90% of them supporting the controlled demolition theory. That is the normal result at the end of the lectures and has been from pretty well the beginning.

Most engineers have never even thought past the government story as parrotted by the media and as a result they have not examined the specifics for themselves. But just one short lecture from Richard is usually enough for a 100% about-face.


My experience, at my first debate with Gage, was basically that after Gage spoke, the truthers still agreed with him, and he swayed a few undecideds. After I spoke, the truthers were still truthers, but the formerly undecideds switched back. So basically, a wash.

Gage's account is here (http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php#speak206), and mine here (http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/how_i_debated_a_9_11_truther_and_survived).

Gage's first report badly misrepresented ("lied about", if you prefer) the actual vote:
A twenty-minute question and answer period followed my talk. As the meeting was adjourned and everyone was poised to leave, I asked for one more show of hands. This time, the results were almost the same as when the afternoon began: “Fires brought down buildings” (sixteen hands), “Unsure” (eight), and “Explosive controlled demolition” (six).

A few days after the talks, Gage posted only the first two votes on his Web site, misreporting the second vote severely (making his 56–44 percent margin of victory into an 86–14 percent landslide). After I protested, Gage corrected his numbers and even included the third vote, while dismissing it as “useless” because of the brevity of the presentations and the fact that some audience members arrived late.

Gage makes every effort to make these "presentations" one-sided. Look at the AE911 presentations page, and see how all the other talks went, then look again at all the weasel-wording about the Socorro debate.

I only had a few days to prepare for that debate. Now I've had months, and have my own physics models for the collapses, lateral ejections of beams, dynamic impacts, etc.

If I tied Gage with very little preparation, how will I do with lots of preparation? And the help of JREFers on this forum?

Being a geologist/seismologist for my day job, I'm heading to the remote field for a couple of weeks. I'll return a few days before the big Debate. On July 31 at 10 PM MDT, I'll do some live blogging here so folks can comment on the debate as it progresses.

See you then! Meanwhile, have fun waiting for BS to come up with evidence-based reasons to believe his claims.

Cheers, Dave

[tsig]

Again, why do they have to see a physical presentation by Gage in order to be so convinced? Why isn't their material available online good enough? Does he have a super sexy voice in real life?

The magic can only be passed on personally.

[Grizzly Bear]

This is horse ****! There were about 74 attendees at the presentation DGM and I attended. I believe there was 1 licensed Engineer in attendance and he disagreed with Gage. Most of the people that attend his **** Show are truthers.

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 and don't change spelling and use symbols etc. to avoid the auto-censor.

From time to time I see banners for these kinds of groups on my University campus, but it's quite rare, and the few people that have seen the conspiracy docs have pretty much told they were total BS. I haven't seen any of the specifically 9/11 truther related stuff but I've seen banners for zeitgeist and alex Jone's Obama thing, but whatever movement there is at my school barely makes any of its presence felt. In the school of Architecture they've been nearly non-existent since I started there in 2005, save for maybe one single person who had an infowars banner on her laptop. I haven't seen her since hanging around. So there's thes types of people there, but certainly not prevalent.

[tsig]

Well most of them certainly seem to be by the time they leave anyway. Not that most of them do anything about it but I bet they sure aren't happy either and the time will come sure as eggs is eggs...

Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.

Remember this ? It applies 100% to this sitiation...

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."

--Mark Twain

With time eggs become chickens...or rotten. I don't see any chicks

[DGM]

It would, except that I screwed it up.

That 170,000 isn't just one year. I misread the US Dept of Labor stats on engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), it's actually the increase over a ten year period.

So the number of newly minted engineers in a year is only fourteen times bigger than Gages entire fan club rather than 140.

My bad. :(
I thought the numbers appeared a bit high. I was getting visions of being over-run by engineers. :eek:

[bill smith]

My experience, at my first debate with Gage, was basically that after Gage spoke, the truthers still agreed with him, and he swayed a few undecideds. After I spoke, the truthers were still truthers, but the formerly undecideds switched back. So basically, a wash.

Gage's account is here (http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php#speak206), and mine here (http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/how_i_debated_a_9_11_truther_and_survived).

Gage's first report badly misrepresented ("lied about", if you prefer) the actual vote:


Gage makes every effort to make these "presentations" one-sided. Look at the AE911 presentations page, and see how all the other talks went, then look again at all the weasel-wording about the Socorro debate.

I only had a few days to prepare for that debate. Now I've had months, and have my own physics models for the collapses, lateral ejections of beams, dynamic impacts, etc.

If I tied Gage with very little preparation, how will I do with lots of preparation? And the help of JREFers on this forum?

Being a geologist/seismologist for my day job, I'm heading to the remote field for a couple of weeks. I'll return a few days before the big Debate. On July 31 at 10 PM MDT, I'll do some live blogging here so folks can comment on the debate as it progresses.

See you then! Meanwhile, have fun waiting for BS to come up with evidence-based reasons to believe his claims.

Cheers, Dave

Well you can only do your best.See you in a few weeks then.

[bill smith]

2,000,000 - 1,199 = 1,998,801

Even if your figures had been accurate it cannot be assumed that they support the government OCT. In fact virtually none of the two million engineers have been asked to go on the record with their opinion. ae911truth.org has 1200-plus degreed/licenced architects and engineers who have literally put their careers on the line after lengthy study in their area of professional expertise told them that the Twin Towers had been professionally demolished.

I doubt that the governmant can come up with 100 engineering names in total who agree in writing that the Towers collapsed because of fire, terrorists and planes.

[DGM]

ae911truth.org has 1200-plus degreed/licenced architects and engineers who have literally put their careers on the line after lengthy study in their area of professional expertise told them that the Twin Towers had been professionally demolished.


And how do you know this? Have you asked them or are you taking Gage's word?

[DGM]

I doubt that the governmant can come up with 100 engineering names in total who agree in writing that the Towers collapsed because of fire, terrorists and planes.

There are more then one hundred listed in the NIST reports. You really don't research anything do you?

[bill smith]

There are more then one hundred listed in the NIST reports. You really don't research anything do you?

The scientists who were contracted by NIST carried out compartmentalised studies on this or that particular sublect. The heads of NIST drew the disparate threads together into the woven lies of 9/11.

[DGM]

The scientists who were contracted by NIST carried out compartmentalised studies on this or that particular sublect. The heads of NIST drew the disparate threads together into the woven lies of 9/11.
So that's how they did it!


:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

So that's how they did it!


:rolleyes:

That's how NIST did it yes. It's really not that complicated. The guys at the top are the only ones with the full picture. They can play it how they like. It was ever thus though hopefully this time we will corner them.

[DGM]

That's how NIST did it yes. It's really not that complicated. The guys at the top are the only ones with the full picture. They can play it how they like. It was ever thus though hopefully this time we will corner them.
I don't feel I need to add anything to this.


:rolleyes:

[Edx]

That's how NIST did it yes. It's really not that complicated. The guys at the top are the only ones with the full picture. They can play it how they like. It was ever thus though hopefully this time we will corner them.

And yet because of NISTs investigation all kinds of important building codes have been revised around the world affecting hundreds of thousands of actual working engineers every day. Why don't they question it Bill? Are they just too stupid and believe everything they hear and only Gage's gaggle understand the truth?

Truthers act like the NIST reports were just some kind of irrelevant government report that had no affect on the industry.

[bill smith]

And yet because of NISTs investigation all kinds of important building codes have been revised around the world affecting hundreds of thousands of actual working engineers every day. Why don't they question it Bill? Are they just too stupid and believe everything they hear and only Gage's gaggle understand the truth?

Truthers act like the NIST reports were just some kind of irrelevant government report that had no affect on the industry.

I am not aware of a single building code that has been changed im Europe in response to the NIST reports. I doubt that Russia or China would have changed anything either. So I would be obliged if you would provide links to information on especially European building code changes in response to the NIST 9/11 reports.

[Dog Town]

ae911truth.org has 1200-plus degreed/licenced architects and engineers.

Ummm...no they don't!
Unless you can show a list of deg/licenced eng/architects that totals 1200+, cause Box Boys won't make it.It is only another lie! I already know the answer, do you?

[Edx]

I am not aware of a single building code that has been changed im Europe in response to the NIST reports. I doubt that Russia or China would have changed anything either. So I would be obliged if you would provide links to information on especially European building code changes in response to the NIST 9/11 reports.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

If you scroll down you can see organisations affected, also see from the top of the next page (http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-10-23T22%3A25%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=6).

Seems to be rather a lot, don't you agree?

So, see my previous question... Why don't they question it Bill? Are they just too stupid and believe everything they hear and only Gage's gaggle understand the truth?

EDIT:

Also found an interesting quote:

"The World Trade Center could not have been built in the United Kingdom," insists Ed Galea director of the Fire Safety Engineering Group at the University of Greenwich in London. "The number of the staircases would have been insufficient. The nature of those staircases would not have met our requirements. We would have required concrete. You would have also needed lobbies on each floor to protect staircases from smoke. Also, the connections between the floor joists and upright columns would've been much more robust. It's all part of the U.K. building code." It's unlikely that the WTC could have been constructed in Japan either. "Buildings one hundred meters or higher are framed in reinforced concrete rather than steel," Tokyo structural engineer Masahiko Fukasawa says.

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040309.html

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Even if your figures had been accurate

First, the figure you are responding to here isn't the one I had to correct. The number of engineers across the US and Canada is nearly 2 million just as I said.

But the membership of Dick Gages stalinist personality cult isn't just drawn from the US and Canada, but from around the world. To be completely accurate, would have to compare AE911T's membership to the global count of engineers and architects.

It just gets worse and worse for you, Billy.

it cannot be assumed that they support the government OCT. In fact virtually none of the two million engineers have been asked to go on the record with their opinion.

Yes it can. For the same reason you don't have to ask every physicist about the Law of Gravity and the Speed of Light.

ae911truth.org has 1200-plus degreed/licenced architects and engineers who have literally put their careers on the line

That's because 9/11 CT's are such flatulent fantasies that signing aboard with AE911T is tantamount to a confession of professional incompetence.

No sane person would willingly walk into a building designed by someone who thinks fire can't weaken steel. No businessman who doesn't want to get his ass sued off will hire such a person to design buildings for him.

I doubt that the governmant can come up with 100 engineering names in total who agree in writing that the Towers collapsed because of fire, terrorists and planes.

NIST employs almost 3,000 people.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am not aware of a single building code that has been changed im Europe in response to the NIST reports.

Argument from ignorance. Appeal to false authority.

I doubt that Russia or China would have changed anything either.

Argument from personal incredulity.

So I would be obliged if you would provide links to information on especially European building code changes in response to the NIST 9/11 reports.

Moving of goalposts.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The scientists who were contracted by NIST carried out compartmentalised studies on this or that particular sublect. The heads of NIST drew the disparate threads together into the woven lies of 9/11.

Moving of goalposts.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Poisoning the well.
Bare assertion fallacy.
Poor spelling.

[Brainster]

My experience, at my first debate with Gage, was basically that after Gage spoke, the truthers still agreed with him, and he swayed a few undecideds. After I spoke, the truthers were still truthers, but the formerly undecideds switched back. So basically, a wash.

No, Dave, that is a spectacular victory. As debunkers, we cannot expect to win converts from the Truther side. All we can hope is to prevent more people from being infected with the madness.

Great job!

[bill smith]

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

If you scroll down you can see organisations affected, also see from the top of the next page (http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2007-10-23T22%3A25%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=6).

Seems to be rather a lot, don't you agree?

So, see my previous question... Why don't they question it Bill? Are they just too stupid and believe everything they hear and only Gage's gaggle understand the truth?

EDIT:

Also found an interesting quote:



http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040309.html

Hi-rise buildings didn't collapse from the top down before they changed the codes and strangely they have not fallen down in that manner since . It's almost as if the code changes are purely cosmetic. A kind of window dressing.
IIt's as if the only examples in the recorded history of the planet Earth of the top-down collapse of a hi-rise building was on 9/11 itself when it happened not once but twice inside an hour

[Dog Town]

IIt's as if the only examples in the recorded history of the planet Earth of the top-down collapse of a hi-rise building was on 9/11 itself when it happened not once but twice inside an hour

SO WHAT? Twoofers repeat this over, and over, as if it means something.
Do you even have a point?

[bill smith]

SO WHAT? Twoofers repeat this over, and over, as if it means something.
Do you even have a point?

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .Especially when there are well-motivated high suspicions that the buildings were deliberately demolished.

[Dog Town]

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .Especially when there are well-motivated high suspicions that the buildings were deliberately demolished.

Thanks, so you have no point what so ever. I get it, thank you for honesty!

[Edx]

Hi-rise buildings didn't collapse from the top down before they changed the codes and strangely they have not fallen down in that manner since . It's almost as if the code changes are purely cosmetic. A kind of window dressing.
IIt's as if the only examples in the recorded history of the planet Earth of the top-down collapse of a hi-rise building was on 9/11 itself when it happened not once but twice inside an hour

Didn't answer my question, again. Good one!
:rolleyes:

[grandmastershek]

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .Especially when there are well-motivated high suspicions that the buildings were deliberately demolished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

not so unique. very well motivated suspicions though. got to fuel the flames of paranoia somehow. even the creationists are well motivated against evolution. do you have a point?

[bill smith]

Picked up this snippet..

'' Nationwide AE911Truth Ads on Coast to Coast with George Noory ''

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-13/nationwide-ae911truth-ads-coast-coast-george-noory

[Harpo]

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .

NASA put 2 people on the surface of the moon within an hour of each other (Armstrong and Aldrin). That event was "utterly unique...in the recorded history of planet Earth". Besides hyperbole and obfuscation/avoidance, what IS your point?

[HyJinX]

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .Especially when there are well-motivated high suspicions that the buildings were deliberately demolished.

Do you ever think about your posts before hitting the submit button? Something tells me that you'd be a piss-poor chess player.

[Gamolon]

Shhh....Best to let the readers decide about the odds of an utterly unique occurance in the recorded history of the planet Earth happening twice inside an hour .Especially when there are well-motivated high suspicions that the buildings were deliberately demolished.

Ah yes. The "odds".

Care to share the data you've accumulated or historical data you have used in order to determine that this was an odd occurrence?

Is this like the odds of being struck by lightning?
Is this like the odds of winning the lottery?

You and every other truther likes to toss this around like it means something.

So please. In order to discuss the odds of the towers collapsing like they did, please present your data. Please show use all the other 110 story towers, using a "tube in tube" design and steel infrastructure that were struck by jets in the upper third and remained standing after the fires.

From where I'm standing, this was a unique incident and you have no historical data from which to draw an "odds based" conclusion on how the towers SHOULD have collapsed.

I have a couple questions for you. If this incident never happened and NIST published their study as a possible scenario, could you or anyone else deem it physically impossible? If so, what parts of their study could you point to and and provide scientific/mathematic/structural evidence against that would make what NIST proposed a physical impossibility?

[Edx]

NASA put 2 people on the surface of the moon within an hour of each other (Armstrong and Aldrin). That event was "utterly unique...in the recorded history of planet Earth". Besides hyperbole and obfuscation/avoidance, what IS your point?

Bill is probably a moon hoaxer as well.

[carlitos]

NASA put 2 people on the surface of the moon within an hour of each other (Armstrong and Aldrin). That event was "utterly unique...in the recorded history of planet Earth".
Depends on your definition of "planet Earth."
:duck:

[bill smith]

Picked up this snippet..

'' Nationwide AE911Truth Ads on Coast to Coast with George Noory ''

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-13/nationwide-ae911truth-ads-coast-coast-george-noory

The video didn't work for me from that link but it did from this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c

[ProfJoey223]

Gentlemen of JREF:

Symmetrical Collapse - - PLUS - - Free Fall Speed - - EQUALS - - Explosives. Period.

End of debate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Gentlemen of JREF:

Symmetrical Collapse

It wasn't symmetrical.

- - PLUS - - Free Fall Speed

It wasn't free fall.


- - EQUALS - - Explosives.

Dr. Jones thinks it was magic thermite. You should talk with him.

Period.

Try Midol™.

End of debate.

It ended in 2006. Where have you been?

BTW, Unloved Rebel will be by to identify you shortly. He's usually pretty accurate.

[ElMondoHummus]

Someone please tell me that was a drive by Poe'ing. Please.

[bill smith]

Gentlemen of JREF:

Symmetrical Collapse - - PLUS - - Free Fall Speed - - EQUALS - - Explosives. Period.

End of debate.

Welcome Joe. Your introduction was short but 100% accurate. Lots of meat here to eat..lol

[Horatius]

It wasn't symmetrical.



It wasn't free fall.



Dr. Jones thinks it was magic thermite. You should talk with him.



Try Midol™.



It ended in 2006. Where have you been?

BTW, Unloved Rebel will be by to identify you shortly. He's usually pretty accurate.



You forgot:

Gentlemen of JREF:



Sexist.

[Dog Town]

Lots of meat here to eat..lol
Funny you would think so. Cuz meat, ain't what you been dinning on here!
Does it make you dizzy?

[Telltale Tom]

Gentlemen of JREF:

Symmetrical Collapse - - PLUS - - Free Fall Speed - - EQUALS - - Explosives. Period.

End of debate.

Professor,
Welcome to the forum, and as a new truther we are looking forward to great things. It will take you a while to figure how this works. The forum has been going since 2006, and with over 100million viewings of posts. every subject has been discussed and are recycled on a 6 to 9 month cycle. The more we go on the less sensible discussion and the more it turns to name calling... which is good for truth as the arguments become more balanced.

There are lots of debunkers here who will argue with any statement, see below. Tony Szambotti has been pushing the idea that the towers fell at 2/3rd's freefall speed for some time in an effort to undermine the truth movement.

You are simply wrong as Richard Gage does support my theory. If you think I am trying to undermine anything you are out in left field.

Watch this video and listen to what he says between 4:50 and 5:00 minute marks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUaDtIbLow

2/3rds or 70% of freefall acceleration is near freefall. Your argument here is nonsensical.

Yes, sadly, even Richard doesn't agree with the ae911truth web site when you get into detail, which is why we like to keep the truth to generalities. So it is true that 2/3 freefall acceleration is near freefalll, and equally true that 2/3 freefall speed is equi-distant from freefall acceleration and 1/3rd freefall acceleration.

We find that keeping the truth to vague generalities in these arguments give us plenty of leeway to draw many conclusions that prove controlled demolition.

Szamboti is also pushing tilt of 5 to 15 degrees. So I guess that means our equation is more like:

Symetrical collapse +/- 10~15% plus 2/3 freefall speed+/- 30% is equal to controlled demolition +/-100%

End of debate

[ElMondoHummus]

We've gone from a drive-by Poe'ing to a full-on exchange of fire now... :boggled:

[DavidJames]

Telltale Tom has become my favorite CT forum poster, for reasons I suspect 95% of those here just don't understand.

[Edx]

It would, except that I screwed it up.

That 170,000 isn't just one year. I misread the US Dept of Labor stats on engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), it's actually the increase over a ten year period.

So the number of newly minted engineers in a year is only fourteen times bigger than Gages entire fan club rather than 140.

My bad. :(

How did you work this out? Im not a maths wizz, unless you read it somewhere specific :D

[Telltale Tom]

It would, except that I screwed it up.

That 170,000 isn't just one year. I misread the US Dept of Labor stats on engineers (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm), it's actually the increase over a ten year period.

So the number of newly minted engineers in a year is only fourteen times bigger than Gages entire fan club rather than 140.

My bad. :(

Don't feel so bad. It is easy to manipulate truth in statistics.

A+E's from any country can sign the ae911truth petition. Pro-rating your number according to world population and adding architects in equal proportion means that each year over 140,000 A+E's from around the world will be added to the work force. And each year about 400 people sign the ae911truth petition, and maybe 100 of them are new graduates.

And once people sign the petition there name is there for ever, so in a very very long time there will be more people on the petition than off it.

[Dog Town]

And once people sign the petition there name is there for ever, so in a very very long time there will be more people on the petition than off it.

Yes, you are one hell of a parody. Subtle, but I like it!;)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

How did you work this out? Im not a maths wizz, unless you read it somewhere specific :D

Read the link.

US Labor Dept reports 1.7 million engineers in the US. With a projected 11% increase over ten years. That's roughly 17,000 per year.

17,000 divided by 1,200 (AE911T's approximate current membership) equals 14.1666~