AE911Truth, physicists to debate Coast to coast

[Steve001]

I hope they do a through job of decimating the Truthers





World Trade Center destruction on 'Coast to Coast AM'


A highly anticipated debate between two members of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and two physicists is scheduled for August 21, 2010. The debate will air on the popular late night talk show Coast to Coast AM (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/) with host Ian Punnett between 10pm - 2am Pacific time.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and an architect for over twenty years, has delivered over 150 presentations in 17 countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and throughout the United States. He will be joined by Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen—a chemist and university teacher with expertise in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology.


More http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Conspiracy-Examiner~y2010m8d3-AE911Truth-physicists-to-debate-World-Trade-Center-destruction-on-Coast-to-Coast-AM

[T.A.M.]

Any idea who the two physicists are?

Who wants to lay odds on how much actual physics will be covered versus non scientific DRG regrugitation?

TAM:)

[bill smith]

Any idea who the two physicists are?

Who wants to lay odds on how much actual physics will be covered versus non scientific DRG regrugitation?

TAM:)

Sure. Dave Thomas and Kim something-or-other.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area (http://www.nmsr.org/goradio.htm), and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170346), I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave

[T.A.M.]

Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM:)

And be sure to ask poor Richard why he spices up his oratory with dramatic hyperbole.

[Sabretooth]

Sure. Dave Thomas and Kim something-or-other.

The founder of Wendy's?

Love me a double-bacon cheeseburger :cool:






:D

[T.A.M.]

So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM:)

Dave. This would be a perfect opportunity, in public, to ask harrit why neither he nor jones have submitted their samples for independent analysis by an independent lab. They will likely answer that they have, but they havent. They submitted it to two other truther scientists. Corner him on how unscientific it is to not have ones result, as groundbreaking as they potentially are, not verified by independent labs.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM:)

...

It's a long story, actually. Pop open a cool one and sit back for a second.

Gage initially wanted two whole teams on each side. Truthers on his initial team lineup were Gage, Kevin Ryan (Chem.), Michael Donly (P.E.), Niels Harrit (Chemistry), and Erik Lawyer (Firefighter). We were supposed to come up with an equal number of debaters on our side. That would have been a little hard - I didn't get positive responses from many I asked (Roberts, Mackey, Bazant, Romero etc.).

However, Ian Punnett of Coast-to-Coast AM came down against having 10 people arguing at once, and told us to limit partners to One Each.

Even then, Gage was still pleading for twice that, pummeling Punnett with demands to alternate between his chemist (Harrit) and his firefighter (Lawyer). We did have our own firefighter waiting in the wings. Had I chosen the firefighter, Gage pledged to choose Lawyer over Harrit. I decided to just go with my physicist colleague Kim Johnson, who has examined many 9/11 truth claims. Thus, Gage went with Harrit accordingly.

And that's how the Great Debate came to be between an architect and a chemist, and two physicists.

As to where Gage & Harrit will try to steer the conversation, Gage anted up with a huge list of 16 topics divided up for the four hours, with his team introducing ("framing") each and every topic, and with responses timed down to every single minute.

This prompted Punnett to tell Gage that he didn't tell Gage how to design buildings, then asked why Gage was telling C2C how to do their radio show.

FWIW, here's Gage's list of original topics. We have no intentions of letting Gage and Harrit do the steering.


Segment #1: 10 minutes – Introduction
9/11 review, 2 airplanes - 3 WTC High-rises brought down,

Segment #2: 10 minutes – 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”?

Segment #3: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – In Free-fall
Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?

Segment #4: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – FEMA Report
Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.

Segment #5: 10 minutes – 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)?

Segment #6: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Fires:
“Normal office fires”
No precedent
extraordinary hypothesis

Segment #7: 10 minutes - 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


Segment #8: 10 minutes - 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

Segment #9: 10 minutes – Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples

Segment #10: 10 minutes – WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence

Segment #11: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction
BBC, CNN, etc.


Segment #12: 10 minutes – 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

Segment #13: 10 minutes – 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

Segment #14: 10 minutes – 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

Segment #15: 10 minutes
Lateral Ejection
Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
Total Building Destruction

Segment #16: 10 minutes – Overall Concluding Remarks


Cheers, Dave

[dudalb]

I hope Gordon Freeman calls in with questions.........

[T.A.M.]

Segment #1 - the title alone tells me there will be no science involved. It will be the old "noone paid attention to wtc7 even though never before in hisotry had a skyscraper colapsed due to fires. Why was it not mentioned by the commission...blah blah blah.

Segment #2 - also no science likely, except some probability calculations. Once again, all speculation to gear up the audience....nothing of substance.

When i get home from clinic, ill address the rest.

TAM:)

[bill smith]

The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area (http://www.nmsr.org/goradio.htm), and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170346), I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave

Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. As the two assemblies meet they do so floor-by-floor (one from above and one from below). According to Newton the top floor of the lower assembly will reciprocate exactly whatever kinetic energy the bottom floor of the upper assembly imparts on it. Both floors are shattered leaving 12 floors above and 96 below and so on and on until the top assembly is no longer able to impart a force sufficient to prevent collapse arrest.

How would you deal with that in the debate ?

[twinstead]

As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.

[bill smith]

As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.

No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.

[twinstead]

No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.

No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.

[twinstead]

Seriously. If I can understand this ANYBODY can.

[bill smith]

No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.

NO--only the one single lowest floor makes initial contact . Whatever force it brings to bear is EXACTLY reciprocated by the well-supported topmost lower floor.

[Sabretooth]

No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.

So you're implying that the floor below should have held up the one above?

If that understanding of physics were true, a billiard ball on a pool table would not be able to move another ball(s).

[Grizzly Bear]

Segment #5: 10 minutes – 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)?
Sorry to interject... but seriously? He wants to debate whether this happens at all?
http://a.imageshack.us/img231/8231/epicfacepalmfacepalmdem.jpg

Anyway seems you'll an easy ride through this if these are the kinds of things he plans to discuss.

[bill smith]

No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.

Now you are behaving like an idiot savant (or is it bazant). You see you can't have a block above and an assembly of single floors below as you might think. It is either a block falling in a much larger and stronger block or it is an assembly of 13 single floors falling on a much larger and stronger assembly of 97 single floors. No mixing and matching I'm afraid.

PS. I was more interested in how Dave would have tackled this softball question.

[twinstead]

NO--only the one single lowest floor makes initial contact . Whatever force it brings to bear is EXACTLY reciprocated by the well-supported topmost lower floor.

This is totally wrong bill. The entire mass of the upper portion makes contact with the single floor below it. Seriously, NOBODY who knows anything about physics would agree with you about that.

Again, if I understand this ANYBODY can.

[twinstead]

Now you are behaving like an idiot savant (or is it bazant). You see you can't have a block above and an assembly of single floors below as you might think. It is either a block falling in a nmuch larger and stronger block or it is an assembly of 13 single floors falling on a much larger and stronger assembly of 97 single floors. No mixng and matching I'm afraid.

You are wrong bill. Wrong as hell. Ask this of ANY physics teacher on earth and report back his response.

[T.A.M.]

The above 6-8 posts are completely off topic. Please stop the derail. There are tonnes of threads where this dead horse can be beaten up again.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Yes, I agree. This horse is not only dead but in the fossil record. Sorry for the derail

[bill smith]

Yes, I agree. This horse is not only dead but in the fossil record. Sorry for the derail

Me too though Dave may appreciate having had the question fleshed out a little for him. It IS legit to ask him this question you know ?

[T.A.M.]

# Segment #3: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – In Free-fall

Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?


SO here is where he is gonna do TWO things.
1. He will bring up the "characteristics of Controlled Demolition Collapse" and then compare those to the observations of WTC7
2. He will likely bring up Chandler's 2.25 seconds of Free Fall, which we all know was not free fall of the entire building but only a portion of it.

Be prepared on the above.


# Segment #4: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – FEMA Report

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


Haven't read the FEMA report in a while, but most of its findings are over-ridden by the more recent and much more thorough NIST report.


# Segment #5: 10 minutes – 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)?


1. Fire Theory - I suppose he is referring to the theory that the unfought uncontrolled fires are the suggested reason for the collapse of column 79, and the global collapse that occurred.
2. Computer simulations - no comment
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?

Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?

Fire Duration etc.... that requires technical details as to the contents for a given area on a given floor...tough to do I would think.


# Segment #6: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Fires:

“Normal office fires”
No precedent
extraordinary hypothesis


Shouldn't this have been covered in the previous segment? Anyway, What about normal office fires...he will likely go into the temps you could expect, and if such temps would have resulted in what we saw...speculation again.

No precedent - ok, but also the building was unique, the fire extinguishing systems failed, the fires were allowed to go unfought for hours, so there were no precedents to go by on all accounts...so what is the point of the "no precedent" argument.

Extraordinary Hypothesis? Oh hell, so if a column failure from unfought uncontrolled fires leading to global collapse is called "extraordinary" then what do you call the hypothesis, that "secret soundless explosives were planted in the building without anyone knowing or seeing, weeks and months in advance, to demolish a building because it contained documents that a simple shredder and sledgehammer could have taken care of"?

I think the latter hypothesis is MUCH MUCH more extraordinary then the former.


# Segment #7: 10 minutes - 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


Easy one here. They found chips that NO ONE ELSE has been able to find in any of the other WTC samples. Their results have not been verified by independent labs. Their samples have a horrible chain of custody, and ended up in the hands of scientists with a well known bias agenda to prove that CD occurred on 9/11. Their paper is full of methodological errors, and they made a MINIMAL attempt to find more likely, more plausible answers for what their chips are.


# Segment #8: 10 minutes - 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


Even easier. Molten METAL. Lots of aluminum Lots of Copper Lots of other metals. Molten Glass can look orange at a given temperature. The reason the fires were going on for weeks and months is due to where the fires were...smoldering under tonnes of debris.


# Segment #9: 10 minutes – Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
# Segment #10: 10 minutes – WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
# Segment #11: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction

BBC, CNN, etc.


Segment 9 is covered above
Segment 10 is non scientific...so why do they want you to debate it?
Segment 11 - ditto


# Segment #12: 10 minutes – 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

# Segment #13: 10 minutes – 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

# Segment #14: 10 minutes – 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

# Segment #15: 10 minutes

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

# Segment #16: 10 minutes – Overall Concluding Remarks


All of the WTC stuff is old, well debunked here. Read Mackey's White Paper on the subject. Understand the NIST report (unlike Gage and his minions) and you will be fine.

TAM:)

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. ...

How would you deal with that in the debate ?

Sorry, Bill - I'm under no obligation to show my hand until the game is under way. You will have to tune in to Coast-to-Coast AM at 11:00 PM MDT on Aug.21st, just like everybody else.

If you're curious when the show runs in your locale, click here (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=8&day=21&year=2010&hour=23&min=0&sec=0&p1=394).

To listen in, you can find a list of stations that live-stream Coast to Coast AM, here (http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?showid=667).

Cheers, Dave

[bill smith]

SO here is where he is gonna do TWO things.
1. He will bring up the "characteristics of Controlled Demolition Collapse" and then compare those to the observations of WTC7
2. He will likely bring up Chandler's 2.25 seconds of Free Fall, which we all know was not free fall of the entire building but only a portion of it.

Be prepared on the above.



Haven't read the FEMA report in a while, but most of its findings are over-ridden by the more recent and much more thorough NIST report.



1. Fire Theory - I suppose he is referring to the theory that the unfought uncontrolled fires are the suggested reason for the collapse of column 79, and the global collapse that occurred.
2. Computer simulations - no comment
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?

Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?

Fire Duration etc.... that requires technical details as to the contents for a given area on a given floor...tough to do I would think.



Shouldn't this have been covered in the previous segment? Anyway, What about normal office fires...he will likely go into the temps you could expect, and if such temps would have resulted in what we saw...speculation again.

No precedent - ok, but also the building was unique, the fire extinguishing systems failed, the fires were allowed to go unfought for hours, so there were no precedents to go by on all accounts...so what is the point of the "no precedent" argument.

Extraordinary Hypothesis? Oh hell, so if a column failure from unfought uncontrolled fires leading to global collapse is called "extraordinary" then what do you call the hypothesis, that "secret soundless explosives were planted in the building without anyone knowing or seeing, weeks and months in advance, to demolish a building because it contained documents that a simple shredder and sledgehammer could have taken care of"?

I think the latter hypothesis is MUCH MUCH more extraordinary then the former.



Easy one here. They found chips that NO ONE ELSE has been able to find in any of the other WTC samples. Their results have not been verified by independent labs. Their samples have a horrible chain of custody, and ended up in the hands of scientists with a well known bias agenda to prove that CD occurred on 9/11. Their paper is full of methodological errors, and they made a MINIMAL attempt to find more likely, more plausible answers for what their chips are.



Even easier. Molten METAL. Lots of aluminum Lots of Copper Lots of other metals. Molten Glass can look orange at a given temperature. The reason the fires were going on for weeks and months is due to where the fires were...smoldering under tonnes of debris.



Segment 9 is covered above
Segment 10 is non scientific...so why do they want you to debate it?
Segment 11 - ditto



All of the WTC stuff is old, well debunked here. Read Mackey's White Paper on the subject. Understand the NIST report (unlike Gage and his minions) and you will be fine.

TAM:)

Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.

You might as well stop trying to 'psych' me out on Gage's behalf, B.S. I've been getting some good advice for the debate, but only from people I respect. I haven't gotten any good advice from you.

EPIC FAIL! (http://sav3rio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6a00e5515a241a883401157.jpg)

Dave

[bill smith]

You might as well stop trying to 'psych' me out on Gage's behalf, B.S. I've been getting some good advice for the debate, but only from people I respect. I haven't gotten any good advice from you.

EPIC FAIL! (http://sav3rio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/6a00e5515a241a883401157.jpg)

Dave

I think the advice to steer clear of the models is sound. But your other advisors will no doubt be telling you the same either now or soon.

[uke2se]

Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.

Interesting admission that truth and science don't matter to the twoof-movement, but it's about winning a crowd by whichever means necessary - which includes lying, of course.

[Sabretooth]

Forget the models facts Dave. they don't work on the radio.

I'm pretty sure this is what he meant to say. ;)

[beachnut]

It would not be hard for Gage, an idiot on 911, to mistake a gravity collapse for CD since gravity is the main mover in each. Gravity, the part of CD he can't comprehend.

The super-nano-thermite is so far out! How do you debate fantasy? The fraudulent paper, call peer reviewed; how do you expose the fraud? No products from a thermite reaction were found at the WTC. No evidence of thermite reactions on steel. They will say the sparks streaming out of the WTC was thermite.

Yosemite has a thermite problem.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745b6c300ddac7.jpg
Truthers use their eyes to see something, and their wild imaginations to turn anything into their favorite delusional lie on 911.


Gage and his fellow liars (related to 911 issues) failed to make progress in 8 years. No Pulitzer Prize for what their biggest cover-up in history, which turns out to be delusions. Gage is traveling on other people's money, spewing nut case ideas about 911, based on nothing.


http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Conspiracy-Examiner~y2010m8d3-AE911Truth-physicists-to-debate-World-Trade-Center-destruction-on-Coast-to-Coast-AM

The people who believe the idiotic lies of Gage and Jones, are commenting, exposing their faith based ignorance on 911.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I hope Gordon Freeman calls in with questions.........

I'd prefer to see him in the studio with a crowbar.

[Quad4_72]

Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. As the two assemblies meet they do so floor-by-floor (one from above and one from below). According to Newton the top floor of the lower assembly will reciprocate exactly whatever kinetic energy the bottom floor of the upper assembly imparts on it. Both floors are shattered leaving 12 floors above and 96 below and so on and on until the top assembly is no longer able to impart a force sufficient to prevent collapse arrest.

How would you deal with that in the debate ?

Are you retarded? Leaving 12 floors above and 96 below? What did the floors vanish into thin air?

[Furcifer]

So they want to start with WTC7 and finish up with WTC1 and 2? lol, they know all the silly WTC1,2 nonsense has been thoroughly debunked and want to start with a topic they can create the most confusion with. Unreal, I wonder what percentage of the public is even aware of WTC 7?

Keep to what matters, WTC1 and 2.

I'll be tuning in, it should be interesting.

[triforcharity]

The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area (http://www.nmsr.org/goradio.htm), and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170346), I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave

I am looking forward to it. Question though. I this available to listen live on the internet? I looked at your link, and I am kinda lost....

[triforcharity]

No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.

I know its off topic, but you keep magically getting rid of the two floors that were damaged. Where do they go Bill? They don't all magically go out of the perimeter.

That is where you fail. Bad. You keep forgetting about the rubble.

ETA: Not that it matters, because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that you know absolutely nothing about anything scientific.

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I am looking forward to it. Question though. I this available to listen live on the internet? I looked at your link, and I am kinda lost....

Not all stations that carry Coast to Coast AM (C2CAM) on the air also stream it live on the web. In fact, our Albuquerque NM affiliate does streaming of all content except Coast to Coast AM.

So, go to the link with the page on stations streaming C2CAM (http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?showid=667), and pick one of the stations it says streams C2C, say KCMO AM, AM 710, Kansas City, MO, (Last Tested: July 17, 2010 by Robrrt).

When you get to the website for the station, e.g. KCMO, look for a "Listen Live" button or link. Click it.

You can probably hear the station's regular programming 24/7. To listen to Coast to Coast AM, live, you have to tune in during the actual show (11:00AM MDT - 3:00AM MDT (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=8&day=21&year=2010&hour=23&min=0&sec=0&p1=394))

Hope that helps.
Dave

[pgimeno]

3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...

Actually isn't the following contradicting the "refusal to check for explosives"?

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm


4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?

The most likely interpretation for this comes from what I've found from DRG. First the source:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

A relevant quote:

Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]

But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

This piece of steel, moreover, was only a small portion of the evidence, ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.

The piece of steel referenced is Sample #1 from FEMA's appendix C (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf). Hope someone with more knowledge in the field can help here, but AFAIK that steel showed no signs of melting at all.

DRG continues:

NIST, however, did not mention either of [two studies showing iron particles in the dust], even though the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.

I've already seen in this forum that iron microspheres are ubiquitous, so not a proof of steel melting.

5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?

Maybe this quote from the same DRG article helps:

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?

6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?

I'd say that would be Kevin Ryan, and maybe Steven Jones. AFAIK Ryan was fired because he spoke in the name of his company (Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.), talking conspiracy theories, without authorization. The Jones story is not too clear to me. If someone knows more please add to it.

Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?

The argument would be if thermal expansion has ever brought a building down. I believe that's a reference to the long girders that triggered WTC7's collapse. Don't laugh so fast ;)

[Furcifer]

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
[/indent]
I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?


Isn't this out of context? I mean if the investigation was to determine the cause of a suspicious fire I can see investigating for explosives. But if you know a gas line was ruptured why would you test for explosives? The primary cause of the WTC7 collapse was never in question.

[TexasJack]

I'd say that would be Kevin Ryan, and maybe Steven Jones. AFAIK Ryan was fired because he spoke in the name of his company (Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.), talking conspiracy theories, without authorization. The Jones story is not too clear to me. If someone knows more please add to it.


Jones was put on paid leave, then elected to resign.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650200587/BYU-professor-in-dispute-over-911-will-retire.html

[triforcharity]

But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:

High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]

That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.

I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?


Dave,

To elaborate on this, this is NFPA 921, and will most likely come out if this topic is touched on. It is brought forth by Eric Lawyer. But, the problem is this.

First off, as you know, thermite in any flavor is not an explosive. Secondly, no evidence of an explosive capable of cutting any of the steel. But, in specific relation to NFPA 921, you have to remember NFPA is not a law, but mearly good practice guidelines.

NFPA in fact puts thermite in the category of exotic accelerants.

See here http://books.google.com/books?id=cm1LUYyXar0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=NFPA+collapse+investigation&source=bl&ots=p49ZoxpOKl&sig=KIXrW14pe943karKvddF_ROX5yI&hl=en&ei=HeC6SsPZLMSFtgf_3NSmDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=snippet&q=thermite&f=false

ALso, NFPA makes it very clear that the effects of thermite can be seen with the naked eye. I don't have a copy of it available online, but I will see if I can get a digital copy and quote it.

Lastly, Eric Lawyer contorts and takes NFPA 921 out of context many times. In fact, AE911T do this often to. When they say that NFPA says that they should have tested for explosives, it gives the qualifier, something along the lines of " IF there is evidence of a loud explosion before the fire, or no immediate cause of fire can be determined, and there is evidence of an explosion, than testing for explosives should occur. Or something along those lines.

Hope this helps! If I get a digital copy of NFPA 921, I will let you know.

[triforcharity]

Isn't this out of context? I mean if the investigation was to determine the cause of a suspicious fire I can see investigating for explosives. But if you know a gas line was ruptured why would you test for explosives? The primary cause of the WTC7 collapse was never in question.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. In most cases, it gives the qualifier of "Fire of Unknown Origin"

[Grizzly Bear]

Dave,

Hope this helps! If I get a digital copy of NFPA 921, I will let you know.
I have a PDF of the 1995 edition. I'm not well versed in the literature or their releases so I have no idea how relevant it is to today's standards but I imagine it'd at least give people an idea. PM me if you want me to forward you any relevant pages

[pgimeno]

Lastly, Eric Lawyer contorts and takes NFPA 921 out of context many times. In fact, AE911T do this often to. When they say that NFPA says that they should have tested for explosives, it gives the qualifier, something along the lines of " IF there is evidence of a loud explosion before the fire, or no immediate cause of fire can be determined, and there is evidence of an explosion, than testing for explosives should occur. Or something along those lines.

There's also this paragraph by NIST which may help:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

(NCSTAR 1, chapter 8, p.176 of the report or 226 of the PDF)

They will probably try to argue that no analysis of the dust was performed or something like that, to determine the presence of explosives like nanothermite. I guess that's not how explosives are checked in case of fire. The "search for evidence of explosives" that "should be undertaken whenever there has been high order damage" would already be covered with the paragraph above.

[Sam.I.Am]

As mentioned earlier therm*te is not an explosive, it's not even close to being seriously considered one by anyone but the truly uninformed and the snake oil salesmen who rely on the ignorance of others to buy their books and DVDs.

You can purchase thermite on the internet and there is not even anything close to a background check for the individual buying the stuff beyond seeing if the credit card is good. You will have a harder time buying fertilizer than you will thermite. This is in a post 9/11 world where supposedly the government is looking under every rock (right down to what library books you're reading) to find suspicious people.

The thing that truthers will run away from is any discussion of real explosives because there are some hard and fast truths that they can never get away from. Thry are, in no particular order:

1) No matter what the primary explosive is (by primary I mean the one that causes the intended damage) be it as crude as black gunpowder or some exotic military grade plastic compound there is always one "Weak" point that is susceptible to heat and shock. The more stable the primary explosive is, the more volatile that the detonator must be to get the explosion started.

2) All conventional explosives leave telltale debris, residue and distinctive marks after detonation. Most of this is visible to the untrained naked eye.

3) By definition any explosive has a distinctive sound of... an explosion. What isn't always true is that the sound of an explosion means that there were explosives involved. An explosion is nothing more than the sudden and rapid release of energy from a single point. Sudden and rapid are subjective observations and not quantitative measurements. What are quantitative are the measured rate of burn for conventional explosives usually measured in the several hundreds and thousands of meters of expansion in the first millisecond of the burn.

Based upon these very basic truths every single argument for any explosives being used on 9/11 is absolute trash. No explosive can survive the impacts and/or fires seen that day, or to be more specific, no detonating device could survive those conditions. This leaves only one option to be able to consider CD as a viable choice. Some very stupid ninjas with more balls than brains slipped into the floors on fire and somehow got through all of the debris and right next to the columns to plant magically quiet explosives that left no debris, residue or markings on the steel. They had to do this not once, not twice, but three times with nobody being the wiser after the fact.

There are literally hundreds of volumes of literature built upon lessons learned while handling explosives, usually after the loss of many lives over something that was easily avoidable but overlooked or not suspected to be a problem at the time. Almost every single incident and accident in all of those books involved either fire, shock or both and nobody who was aware of these simple truths (as anyone who is experienced in handling explosives will tell you) would've gone anywhere near those buildings with anything larger than a firecracker in their pocket (and even then you can bet that they'd be wearing a cup before seriously entertaining the idea).

[bill smith]

As mentioned earlier therm*te is not an explosive, it's not even close to being seriously considered one by anyone but the truly uninformed and the snake oil salesmen who rely on the ignorance of others to buy their books and DVDs.

You can purchase thermite on the internet and there is not even anything close to a background check for the individual buying the stuff beyond seeing if the credit card is good. You will have a harder time buying fertilizer than you will thermite. This is in a post 9/11 world where supposedly the government is looking under every rock (right down to what library books you're reading) to find suspicious people.

The thing that truthers will run away from is any discussion of real explosives because there are some hard and fast truths that they can never get away from. Thry are, in no particular order:

1) No matter what the primary explosive is (by primary I mean the one that causes the intended damage) be it as crude as black gunpowder or some exotic military grade plastic compound there is always one "Weak" point that is susceptible to heat and shock. The more stable the primary explosive is, the more volatile that the detonator must be to get the explosion started.

2) All conventional explosives leave telltale debris, residue and distinctive marks after detonation. Most of this is visible to the untrained naked eye.

3) By definition any explosive has a distinctive sound of... an explosion. What isn't always true is that the sound of an explosion means that there were explosives involved. An explosion is nothing more than the sudden and rapid release of energy from a single point. Sudden and rapid are subjective observations and not quantitative measurements. What are quantitative are the measured rate of burn for conventional explosives usually measured in the several hundreds and thousands of meters of expansion in the first millisecond of the burn.

Based upon these very basic truths every single argument for any explosives being used on 9/11 is absolute trash. No explosive can survive the impacts and/or fires seen that day, or to be more specific, no detonating device could survive those conditions. This leaves only one option to be able to consider CD as a viable choice. Some very stupid ninjas with more balls than brains slipped into the floors on fire and somehow got through all of the debris and right next to the columns to plant magically quiet explosives that left no debris, residue or markings on the steel. They had to do this not once, not twice, but three times with nobody being the wiser after the fact.

There are literally hundreds of volumes of literature built upon lessons learned while handling explosives, usually after the loss of many lives over something that was easily avoidable but overlooked or not suspected to be a problem at the time. Almost every single incident and accident in all of those books involved either fire, shock or both and nobody who was aware of these simple truths (as anyone who is experienced in handling explosives will tell you) would've gone anywhere near those buildings with anything larger than a firecracker in their pocket (and even then you can bet that they'd be wearing a cup before seriously entertaining the idea).
Just let me know Sam if you want a full explanation of how the explosives/incendiaries were secretly planted throughout the buildings without anybody noticing and how they were protected from premature ignition by any of the fires that there were.
Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

[triforcharity]

Just let me know Sam if you want a full explanation of how the explosives/incendiaries were secretly planted throughout the buildings without anybody noticing and how they were protected from premature ignition by any of the fires that there were.
Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

And so ABSOLUTELY retarded, it's almost funny.

[bill smith]

And so ABSOLUTELY retarded, it's almost funny.

Shall I mark that up as you asking for the explanation Tri ? Though I would like Sam to ask too.

[triforcharity]

No, not here, as it would be off topic. Find an appropriate thread.

[bill smith]

No, not here, as it would be off topic. Find an appropriate thread.

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

[twinstead]

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

they must not have as vivid of an imagination as you do.

[Sabretooth]

Maybe a hundred tons or more- and not a sinner noticing a thing. And so simple....

200,000+ lbs of explosives secretly rigged without anyone noticing or suspecting a thing?! And all going off without the aid of fire...or even a shock wave from its detonation?

I'm almost on pins and needles waiting to hear the justification of that one. :boggled:

[ProfJoey223]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Don't you find it amazing that Richard Gage and Harrit and Steven Jones etc have not realised how and where the incendiaries/explosives were hidden ?

They never had technical readouts (blueprints) of the Towers. Anyways, all this talk of "explosives" is not making much sense in technical terms.

1: Why would they need to "hide explosives" when there's 50,000+ witnesses who would see everything? Because nothing can't be hidden from 100,000+ eye balls!

2: Iron oxide, aka RUST, is known to be every where in the US. Steel buildings built near the ocean have been subjected to weather & salt, causing the rust formations on the steel structures. This is why it would seem that there would be "thermite" present in the dust samples. It doesn't take much to disprove a retarded theory just by doing proper research.

3: If there were "explosives" used, why isn't there copper residue on the buildings supports? Because there were never "explosives" there to begin with!

4: Truthers really lack the research skills to make a logical report of 9/11. Handwaving the evidence for an insane theory is just proving, yet again, that evolution is for the strong minded & not the weak minded.

[DGM]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.
The old "Marvin Bush in charge of security". Welcome back from 2006!


:rolleyes:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

And an expert will say: "Are you kidding?", then proceed to laugh in the Truthers faces.

[Sabretooth]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world ...

Name them. I can always give them a call to verify this.

[T.A.M.]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

What are you a professor of, idiocy?

everything in your post has been proven wrong and/or debunked. Did you just fly in from 2006 or something. Marvin Bush...really? Bush/Bin laden friends...really? Power downs? really? really? Like I said, did you just float in from 2006, cause even the worst of your truther moron friends don't bother with these silly canards anymore.

Come on dude, get with the program.

TAM:)

[Scott Sommers]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.

But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history.... and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

I'm on your side with this one brother joey. 911 Truth is sweeping America. It's the issue that's dividing America, dividing families, friends, colleagues. It's the issue that dominates elections platforms at every level in our great nation. Just watch those videos of John McCain at townhall election meetings - everywhere he went, it was voters calling for the truth about 911. Thousands march in the streets demanding justice. Firefighters and police march side-by-side with demolitions experts, scientists, and construction engineers. Textbooks have been rewitten. The entire engineering industry and the training of engineers has been completely reshaped by the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings.

911 Truth is simply the most important social issue of our life time. Tell me more, man. Shake us up some more with some of that 911 Truth Syrup.

[Hokulele]

...

This prompted Punnett to tell Gage that he didn't tell Gage how to design buildings, then asked why Gage was telling C2C how to do their radio show.

...


This is awesome. :D

[twinstead]

Mmmmmm....... 911 Truth Syrup........

[alienentity]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!)

Talk to an expert.

Hehe. So good ole Marvin was 'in charge' was he? That would be very difficult for him since he was never head of security anyway, he was a board member of Securacom, and he left that firm in 2000.

I agree, you should talk to experts - that is, an 'expert' in the literal sense - someone who knows what they're talking about.
Whomever you've been consulting is no expert, I'm afraid, since the info you just provided is false.

Don't even start with the bomb-sniffing dogs, you won't fool anyone here with these tired old myths. They were dead in 2006, now they're Zombie Doctrines, doomed to wander the minds of 9/11 truthers; not alive and not quite dead.

[alienentity]

@Grizzly Bear

Happy B'day!

[Sabretooth]

Mmmmmm....... 911 Truth Syrup........

Never tried it...goes good with Truth Waffles I hear...

[DGM]

Never tried it...goes good with Truth Waffles I hear...
I'm going with the truther "home brew".


:D



:boxedin:

[DGM]

Dave:

You might want to ask how the International "Center" for 9/11 Studies is doing?

http://ic911studies.org/Projects.html

David Chandler is a physics teacher, a Quaker peace activist, and an independent 9/11 researcher, active with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and on the board of the International Center for 9/11 Studies

From this latest (I will assume AE truth approved) "article".

http://www.suesupriano.com/article.php?&id=166

[Gaspode]

Please keep on-topic. This thread is about the upcoming debate. There are plenty of other threads to discuss specific 9/11 issues. Thanks.

[bill smith]

So another possible debating point that Dave may have to deal with might be whether the top one-tenth of a structure can crush the lower and more strongly built nine-tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone ?

He might for instance be asked for any example. large or small in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth of this happening. Would it not be highly embarrassing- not to say compromising not to be able to come up with a single example as debunkers typically can not. He might dissemble, but the listeners will see right through that and draw their own conclusions.

I am not trying to start a discussion on this subject but it IS a point for Dave to consider. There are many more such gems.

[DGM]

So another possible debating point that Dave may have to deal with might be whether the top one-tenth of a structure can crush the lower and more strongly built nine-tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone ?

.

No Bill, For people that actually do understand physics this is a "no brainier".

[bill smith]

No Bill, For people that actually do understand physics this is a "no brainier".
Well then you better hope that the audience understands physics in the 9/11 debunker way. Otherwise this and other questions like it could eviscerate your guys.

[DGM]

Well then you better hope that the audience understands physics in the 9/11 debunker way. Otherwise this and other questions like it could eviscerate your guys.
The problem (for you) is the "convincing argument" only works for the short term. At some point the "science" will always win the argument. Always has, always will.

GOT SCIENCE?

[bill smith]

The problem (for you) is the "convincing argument" only works for the short term. At some point the "science" will always win the argument. Always has, always will.

GOT SCIENCE?
Sure.

A four-hour show isn't it ? Pretty short term really. And yet another point for Dave to bear in mind is that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

[Dog Town]

He might for instance be asked for any example. large or small in the entire recorded history of the planet Earth of this happening.

The answer to this canard is easy. Any one ever land on the moon before Neil & crew?
Nope, yet it still happened! Unless you're a Moon hoaxer maroon, are you BS?
There are many firsts through out recorded history, only a fool believes otherwise! BS?

[Sabretooth]

And yet another point for Dave to bear in mind is that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

Why don't you just threaten to kick his dog while you're at it?

Freakin' scare tactics...usually reserved to those who fear their opposition. Sad.

[bill smith]

The answer to this canard is easy. Any one ever land on the moon before Neil & crew?
Nope, yet it still happened! Unless you're a Moon hoaxer maroon, are you BS?
There are many firsts through out recorded history, only a fool believes otherwise! BS?

I would advise Dave against taking that line. The '9/11 being a day of firsts thing'. It just sounds- ridiculous.

[DGM]

Sure.

A four-hour show isn't it ? Pretty short term really. And yet another point for Dave to bear in mind is that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression.
It doesn't matter one little bit (sorry Dave). If he tanks completely eventually you (truthers) are going to have to put up hard facts (that you don't have).

Do you understand the paradox?

[bill smith]

It doesn't matter one little bit (sorry Dave). If he tanks completely eventually you (truthers) are going to have to put up hard facts (that you don't have).

Do you understand the paradox?

If they 'tank' as you say it will just convert anything up to a few million more individuals to the Truth side. It's inevitable anyway. I fear that the jref 9/11 subforum might be an indirect casualty though and be shut down .

[Sabretooth]

if they 'tank' as you say it will just convert anything up to a few million more individuals to the truth side. It's inevitable anyway. I fear that the jref 9/11 subforum might be a casualty though and be shut down .

you are certifiably crazy my man.

[Dog Town]

I would advise Dave against taking that line. The '9/11 being a day of firsts thing'. It just sounds- ridiculous.

Only to a Twoofer!

[Miragememories]

The problem (for you) is the "convincing argument" only works for the short term. At some point the "science" will always win the argument. Always has, always will.

GOT SCIENCE?
You bet.

Science = the truth.

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.

OCTer = lies about the truth, as in distort science like a good courtroom
lawyer in order to sell your point of view.

Too funny.

MM

[dafydd]

You bet.

Science = the truth.

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.

OCTer = lies about the truth, as in distort science like a good courtroom
lawyer in order to sell your point of view.

Too funny.

MM

No,the name truthers is a derogatory sobriquet,but you lot take it as compliment.Even funnier.

[DGM]

You bet.

Science = the truth.

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.

OCTer = lies about the truth, as in distort science like a good courtroom
lawyer in order to sell your point of view.

Too funny.

MM


It is really! Considering the name "truther" was self imposed. If I call myself "God" does that make me a supreme being?

Your losing it!

[bill smith]

No,the name truthers is a derogatory sobriquet,but you lot take it as compliment.Even funnier.

As you say the name 'Truther' was intended as an insult but we embraced it in the spirit of the Truth.

We call you guys 'Shills' among ourselves and I think you should also embrace it in the spirit of the Truth.

[DGM]

As you say the name 'Truther' was intended as an insult but we embraced it in the spirit of the Truth.

We call you guys 'Shills' among ourselves and I think you should also embrace it in the spirit of the Truth.
So how do you justify a "truther" lying (as been shown many times)? Is it OK to lie if it works to forward the "cause"?

[dafydd]

So how do you justify a "truther" lying (as been shown many times)? Is it OK to lie if it works to forward the "cause"?

Don't bother with Bill the troll.The ignore button comes in handy here.

[DGM]

Don't bother with Bill the troll.The ignore button comes in handy here.
I'm all to aware of this. I also know that unanswered questions are also read by "lurkers".

;)

[dafydd]

I'm all to aware of this. I also know that unanswered questions are also read by "lurkers".

;)

True,at least the lurkers learn something.Bill ceased to be amusing a while ago.

[Telltale Tom]

Sorry, Bill - I'm under no obligation to show my hand until the game is under way. You will have to tune in to Coast-to-Coast AM at 11:00 PM MDT on Aug.21st, just like everybody else.

If you're curious when the show runs in your locale, click here (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=8&day=21&year=2010&hour=23&min=0&sec=0&p1=394).

To listen in, you can find a list of stations that live-stream Coast to Coast AM, here (http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?showid=667).

Cheers, Dave

Poor you,
I doubt you will have much of a chance against our Richard.

He has spoken over 151 times on this and will have the details at his fingertips. Over 98% of the people who listen to him believe the towers were demolished by controlled demolition so I will be surprised if you are not converted.

Can you clarify with him if the twin towers fell at 2/3rds freefall or at nearly freefall or if 2/3rds freefall is nearly freefall. I get confused and would like to know which truth I should believe.

[dafydd]

Poor you,
I doubt you will have much of a chance against our Richard.

He has spoken over 151 times on this and will have the details at his fingertips. Over 98% of the people who listen to him believe the towers were demolished by controlled demolition so I will be surprised if you are not converted.

Can you clarify with him if the twin towers fell at 2/3rds freefall or at nearly freefall or if 2/3rds freefall is nearly freefall. I get confused and would like to know which truth I should believe.

Not up to your usual standard Tom.5/10.Take a break and try again.

[DGM]

True,at least the lurkers learn something.Bill ceased to be amusing a while ago.
The sad part is they don't understand this was the down fall of the "truth" movement. Every post they ignore because it's "inconvenient" gets looked into in other avenues.

You can't contain the "truth" if you let people go searching on their own. :rolleyes:

[BigAl]

Poor you,
I doubt you will have much of a chance against our Richard.

He has spoken over 151 times

Never as far as I know to anyone that was both knowledgeable and critical and where Gage didn't control the switch on the microphone.

[Dog Town]

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.


You're right, they call you Twoofer!
Too funny.
Indeed!

[bill smith]

Dave,

Why not ask Richard Gage and especially Niels Harrit if they have considered whether the nanothermite could have been pumped INSIDE the hollow core columns. That would explain how it was discreetly planted and how Harrit's proposed 100 tons were hidden.

At first glance you might want to write off this question . But think about it a little first.

[Furcifer]

Well then you better hope that the audience understands physics in the 9/11 debunker way.

The ones that don't are smart enough to defer to the professionals.

Otherwise this and other questions like it could eviscerate your guys.

I guess you could be eviscerated by side splitting laughter :D

[Thunder]

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.


Orwell couldn't have been prouder.

[Dog Town]

That would explain how it was discreetly planted and how Harrit's proposed 100 tons were hidden.

You can't possibly know the definition of those two words!
A person who did, would never write that! I'm think'n STUNDIE. Sadly, this must be a parody!:rolleyes:

[alienentity]

Poor you,
I doubt you will have much of a chance against our Richard.

He has spoken over 151 times on this and will have the details at his fingertips. Over 98% of the people who listen to him believe the towers were demolished by controlled demolition so I will be surprised if you are not converted.

Can you clarify with him if the twin towers fell at 2/3rds freefall or at nearly freefall or if 2/3rds freefall is nearly freefall. I get confused and would like to know which truth I should believe.

I like to say, if 64% is nearly freefall, then why did I get a 'C' for a 64% mark in school when Richard Gage is getting an 'A' for the same mark?

No fairseys!

[Sam.I.Am]

You got a C for a 64% grade? I weep for whatever school you went to.

[TruthersLie]

If you spoke to demolition EXPERTS (as have I) around the g--d---n world, you'd know it is not such an impossible task, particularly given that Marvin was in charge of "security" at the WTC (untill the day of 9/11!!!) and that the Bin Laden's were were given the job of reconstruction after the FIRST WTC bombing in '93.


ROFLMAO.

Really... PROF? Really? HOnestly?
OH that is too funny PROF.

It would help if you did 5 minutes of REAL research about good ole marvin.

http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

That took all of 2 minutes to find PROF. I really hope you don't teach like you research.

You really should do some RESEARCH.


But oh, we don't want to talk about how Bush Sr. was meeting with the Bin Laden's the day OF the first WTC bombing, do we?

Oh goody. How many OTHER people were there? Bush Sr was talking with people from the bin laden family ON 9/11. NOT on the day of the first wtc bombing. Your really need to do some research PROF (my ass).


Add to that the mysterious power downs during the weeks before 9/11 and the most "extensive elevator renovation" in history....

Now we have the "powerdowns" that NO ONE EVER SAW OR REPORTED.

Hey PROF... you suck.

Provide a citation PROF.


and the witnesses who saw "maintenence" men going in and out of the WTC during these "power downs" and the...

I'm sure that with those vast research skills you possess PROF you can show me a single citation of
a. powerdowns
b. witness accounts of these "maintenence men"

Pretty please PROF.


Oh, what's the use... You're not interested in truth are you?

3 minutes of real research shows us that this PROF can't find the truther.


Talk to an expert. It won't hurt. Well, a little. Truth sometimes hurts.

Great. Please provide ANY experts which say it was CD... you know backed up by things like
a. evidence
b. scientific papers
c. even good research.

Come on PROF. You can do it!!!!!

[TruthersLie]

You bet.

Science = the truth.

They don't call us 9/11 Truthers for nothing.

OCTer = lies about the truth, as in distort science like a good courtroom
lawyer in order to sell your point of view.

Too funny.

MM

MM...

You may be on to something there.

v=bYzIbOYaSy8

I think that sums up truthers very well..

[BigAl]

When Gage reminds his fans that a big beam was tossed "600 ft.", and asks a leading question about what other than man-made explosives could have done that, is he referring to the beam with the aircraft landing gear stuck in it? NIST says the impact of the plane propelled it which is obvious if you think about it.



Were there any other beams thrown that far? If not, then file this away for the next debate.

From this 4 page NIST document:

The only other major structural damage was on the south face, where a 3-story high by three column wide section of steel was removed from the center of the face and landed nearly 690 feet away with an aircraft wheel stuck in one of the windows.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05173.pdf

[pgimeno]

Were there any other beams thrown that far? If not, then file this away for the next debate.

And if yes, it's still quite normal given the way the collapse progressed, "peeling" the walls:

Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner.

FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, chapter 2 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) p. 2-27

And indeed there are large chunks of façade visible in Ground Zero reaching a long distance due to this peeling:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/columnd-small.jpg