Coast to Coast AM 911 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas
Coast to Coast AM 9/11 debate with Richard Gage and Dave Thomas
On Saturday August 21st, 2010, Richard Gage, AIA from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dave Thomas a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason, joined Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM for the entire program of 4 hours to debate how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001.
Physicist Kim Johnson and chemist Niels Harrit joined the discussion in hour three.
Coast to Coast AM airs on more than 500 stations in the U.S., as well as Canada, Mexico and Guam, and is heard by nearly three million weekly listeners. With hosts George Noory, George Knapp (weekend) and Ian Punnett (weekend), it is the most listened to overnight radio program in North America.
Coast to Coast AM Debate
Note: this debate has been broken down into 11 YouTube videos. The video player posted here should play all videos in sequence, from video 1 to 11. See below for direct links to each video.
Part 1/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcs
Part 2/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6h5sQqN_x8
Part 3/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbSXp-Hr6U
Part 4/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UePiVEiNy4k
Part 5/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOXpKnC-Kxs
Part 6/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V93lg0P35QE
Part 7/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFKHxvePQsI
Part 8/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSbb_nZuQdk
Part 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYaNqM9EQ2E
Part 10/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv2E0BNoGIs
Part 11/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Tj7o2eAD8
- world911truth's blog
- Login to post comments
A shorter, edited version or
A shorter, edited version or partial transcript is needed.
My e-mail to Ian
I thought that this debate was supposed to be Richard Gage vs. Dave Thomas? Instead it felt like Richard Gage vs. Dave Thomas & Ian Punnett. “Great point Ian”, Thomas at one point proclaimed as he congratulated his tag-team partner [You] for helping him score points in the exchange. Basically all of your toughest questions were directed to Gage while softballs were tossed underhand to Thomas. What was the toughest question that you asked Thomas? I can’t remember a single one? Ian, you tried to suggest that the explosion sounds could have just been the sounds of the buildings collapsing organically relative to the silence of the city.
You also shed doubts on the eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is relied upon all of the time in criminal investigations. Then Gage mentioned that the sounds were heard by many credible witnesses BEFORE the collapse even began. Dave Thomas had no coherent response to it at all. In fact he seemed to fall silent. But you didn’t badger him about that like you did Gage about the estimated amount of explosives, who did it, what caused it, why bring down building seven?, etc. All questions that you knew couldn’t be answered without a proper investigation.
Dave Thomas had previously suggested that it was pseudo-science to believe that building seven fell at free-fall speed in one of his own writings. Why didn’t you call him on it? I know that people e-mailed this point to you. NIST itself had officially admitted that it fell at free-fall speed. That makes him the conspiracy theorist challenging the official story. Neils Harrit later pointed out other areas where the skeptics were contradicting NIST.
How’s this for an incredible explosion recorded on video/audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM&feature=search
That doesn't sound to me like the expected crinkling and crackling of a building falling on its own.
William Rodriguez also described what he heard. His testimony was conveniently omitted from the 9/11 Commissions final report. Why hide from it if it means nothing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_LlJzR2oYI&feature=search
You also bolstered the use of computer models as the way that you conduct science. But why belabor that point when Richard Gage explained that the parameters used as input in these so-called computer models were being kept a secret? Is that true science?
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-12/nist-denies-access-wtc-collapse-data
“Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information”
You don’t think it’s unfair to ask ‘truthers’ why these buildings had collapsed yet I don’t hear you formally calling for a new investigation either.
On a final note Ian. It seemed like you spent a whole lot of time reinforcing your preconceived notions about 9/11 by reading mainstream news reports. I’d love to hear you explain this one. It's Fox News. I'm sure that you trust them right?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-ve...
“...Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.…”.
I thought Ian did well for the most part
He seemed genuinely perplexed at the non-release of data for "public safety" concerns.
dtg
Ian punnet was a bought
Ian punnet was a bought whore, he desperately tried to lure Gage and Harrit into accusing someone of committing 911, Punnet was gagging for it throughout the whole interview. At the end he denied Harrit a chance to annihilate the question about nanothermite.
Thomas Spins And Evades
Without just cause, Thomas essentially advises the listener repeatedly:
"There is nothing to see here. Continue shopping."
His evasive answers to certain questions were not nearly scrutinized enough.
Squibs & Lateral Column Ejections Probably Caused By Momentum
If explosively related, the several observed collapse related squibs from each tower could each only be tied to a single device respectively. To suggest that several such devices could collpase each tower by destroying of most or all of the dozens of supportive core columns in each seems implausible.
Likewise, detonations required to hurl multi-ton exterior columns hunderds of feet would require enormously powerful devices that don't otherwise seem to be visually in evidence. Large lateral distances of exterior columns from the building footprints may also be attributable to an apparent "peeling" away of some of these facades during each collapse. Further, explosive destruction of exterior columns seems much less essential than destruction of core columns.
However ... compression related squibs and column ejections are evidence of enormous momentum created by a sudden and complete removal (or destuction) of the supportive structures within each of the towers.
Given the presence of molten material and the "paintable" property of some energetic nano-composites, it seems plausible that each tower's supportive structures were over-heated and eroded to the point of failure by coats of nano-thermite applied in place of rust inhibiting primers. This means could explain the observed "bowing" of exterior columns prior to each tower's collapse, induced by gradual weakening of core columns via over-heating and errosion. Rusting of elevator shaft core columns of each tower was noted in the Merritt & Harris property assessment 9 months before 9/11 and required to be immediately addressed within one year.
Dear Aidan
Earth th Aidan.Have you seen Richard Gage's DVD Blueprint for 911 Truth. I'm getting tried of you guys not seeing the total picture! All the steel was shipped to China - Marvin Bush. the presidents brother was on the broad of directors running security at the WTC.Dozens of MY FRIENDS heard massive explosions BEFORE THE TOWERS CAME DOWN. When are you guys going to really research this and pull your heads out...................these people are murderers. They are starting wars and taking our freedoms away. WAKE THE FUCK UP MAN!!!!
Buildings Were Demolished But ...
I do not necessarily believe they were demolished explosively. Nano-thermite can apparently be tuned to be non-explosive and can weaken steel to which it is applied via over-heating. There may have been some helpful explosive detonations to intitiate each top-down collapse but overheating the structural steel to the point of failure with coats of nanothermite is more plausible than the buildings being exclusively exploded.
A good case can be made for each building being "melted" for lack of a better word, as opposed to being exclusively exploded. Observed bowing of exterior columns shortly before collapse supports the view that the very thick core columns were being gradually weakened by more than simple office fire heat.
Causing the buildings collapses to deliberately resemble fire induced structural failures would help reduce suspicion that they were in fact demolished.
Re the amount of explosives used.
IMHO, there were a huge amount of explosives used. Have you seen this excellent video from David Chandler?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0
Compare it to some quarry blasting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL2hZlgz00I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiN1LR_sHSo
Massive OKC Bomb Launched Ryder Truck Axle Only 2 Blocks
For massive WTC exterior columns weighing tons to be explosively launched comparable distances arguably requires devices even more powerful than the one that destroyed the OKC federal building, which would create massive explosive sounds.
For this reason, it seems more likely that WTC exterior columns were hurled great distances as a result of enormous momentum created by sudden collapse onsets and deflected energies.
However ... the rapid onsets of collapse at the WTC is evidence of demolition, but perhaps not entirely as a result of explosives.
Aidan, with OKC I believe the
Aidan, with OKC I believe the operative word is "bombs"
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/62892
Thermite is very heavy, even lots of nano-thermite. It could also be substituted for elevator weights, which were in abundance at both towers and ran the entire course of the buildings.
clintfuller. Woah guy, you
clintfuller. Woah guy, you obviously aren't aware of the extensive FOIA requests that Aidan has been filing over the years for more 9/11 info.
education time for Aidan
Sorry Aidan, you really need to go back to school and learn a little physics. Momentum caused the lateral ejections??!! LOL!!
The ejections are extremely explosive in a lateral direction, the downward vector of momentum is vastly insufficient, especially as it is mostly absorbed by the vertical collisions.
Sigh, education time again, here we go..........
FACT 1: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
FACT3: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.
The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section's toppling proves the removal of the lower section's resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.
Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
FACT 5: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object's gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.
This proves beyond any doubt that the resistance was removed by explosives. The ONLY building collapses involving freefall speeds are controlled demolitions.
FACT 6: Office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). "Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers."
The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!
The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it's weakest point. Why should it fail?
No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.
FACT 7. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.
There was a network upgrade too wasn't there?
I believe, please correct me if am wrong, in the early days tenants talked about a wiring upgrade for network and internet services? If so, that could be a cover operation for laying the wiring (if hard wiring was used in conjunction) to the outer columns and walls. I have laid network cable dozens and dozens of times and I have often seen structures which have channels or conduit which is accessible in the flooring for wiring runs. Det cord could be coated to look like Cat 5 or Cat 6 cabling if need be. I would guess 4 out of 5 people wouldn't know Cat 5 from telephone cabling or other wiring. I don't know if are any floor plans available that show wiring runs from closets etc? Something to chew on.
peace everyone.
dan
Momentum
Is mass times velocity. It's a quantity any moving body has. Lateral ejections are not caused by momentum, they are caused by force.
To accelerate a column to the velocity required to carry it 600ft laterally before it hits the ground requires a force. In this case it's a large force, over a short time. Measurements show multi-ton columns leaving the building at 70mph. That's a nearly instantaneous acceleration of the exterior columns leaving the building. Explosives are the only way way to do this.
More info on the World Trade Center Debris Field Distribution:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23pvz2l
Upper Portion Collapse Represented By Vector Quantity (Momentum)
The collapsing upper portions of each tower possessed mass, speed and direction - linear momentum.
The tremendous destructive forces observed can originate in the gravitational potential energy unleashed during the rapid onset of collapse of the top portions of each tower. Smaller lateral ejections are arguably the result of related compression. As for the displaced and much larger, multi-ton sections of perimeter columns, it appears in videos that the sections displaced the farthest from the tower footprints were also the sections located highest upon each tower. This would seem to be a result of the perimeter column structures visibly "peeling" away during collapse (particularly the west face of WTC 1), not totally unlike the upper rung of a fallen ladder being the farthest from the location where the ladder had stood. Had these columns been relocated explosively, many other nearby smaller objects traveling farther and faster laterally would be evident.
As it turns out, based on the linked illustration the objects relocated farthest from the tower footprints were the heaviest, "peeled" away columns and the much lighter aluminum cladding that largely floated to their destinations.
I don't doubt that the towers were demolished. I simply believe that certain alleged means and evidence for such means is debatable. The speed of all 3 tower collapses (along with the dust analysis) is the best evidence for demolition IMHO.
I tend to agree
Adian, I don't use the column sections being located several hundred yards away argument myself for exactly the reasons you state.
As you say those located the furthest away are those from the highest points in the towers and there are several ways these sections could receive a lateral force which coupled with a great height will cause them to land a significant distance away.
The much better arguments which show the collapses were results of controlled demolitions concern the relative impossibility of initiation, the lack of high temperatures on the steel evidence which was kept, the speed of collapse, the rapid focused ejections on the corners early in the collapses before they could be shielded from view by debris, and the provable lack of a dynamic load which would be necessary for a natural collapse.
The collapses were most probably accomplished by removing the strength of the outer core columns and cutting the corners of the perimeters so they would lose orthogonal support and peel away as observed when things inside went down and pushed outwardly on them.
WTC 1 Exterior Column Bowing Within 10 Minutes Of Collapse
The abrupt explosive demolition hypothesis at 10:29 is complicated by exterior column bowing noted at 10:23. One can also note during the minutes before the collapse of each building, a rapid increase in the amount of smoke being generated by the buildings, consistent with rapidly increasing combustion, possibly due to the ignition of an incendiary like nanothermite. This observation coincides with the observation of molten flows and white dust (aluminum oxide?) emanating from WTC 2, consistent with a thermitic reaction. The observed molten material resembling molten iron seems to favor a non-explosive ignition of a thermitic material.
The WTC tower collapses may in fact be the result an extreme example of arson, facilitated by energetic materials that can generate temperatures exceeding 2,500C, likely capable of quickly overheating loaded steel to the point of failure.
Exterior column bowing has been cited by debunkers as proof of fire induced collapse. This bowing is also consistent with structural weakening via other means, such as the application of highly exothermic "paints" described by the Jones et al. paper. (see video below)
Fires were simply not hot enough for long enough to cause structural failure. The bowing is evidence however of a gradual structural weakening via other means.
But why just one side of the building?
If it being weakened by other means, why do we not see it on the facades? Only just one side? I think that maybe the outer columns where the floor trusses were connected were taken out first by a slow cutting method, likely thermitic. As the floors are separated, the weight causes the injured side of the building to bow in. The other sides of the building do not bow in as there is enough strength and the connections are holding up even though the connections to the outer set of columns are or are being severed. The molten substance pouring from Tower 2 may be our best clue on how some columns were cut. Stronger connections are blown so people are hearing explosions inside the building. Other columns are being cut thermitically. Evidence for it may the burning of people inside elevator cars as molten iron pours onto them and burns through. We know this occurred on the lower levels from the Naudet Bros. film. I read a magazine article sometime back (i wish i had bookmarked grrr) where a witness told of people who were scorched inside elevators around 34th floor. It wasn't jet fuel pouring down the shafts, it was molten iron. (how horrific).
Explosives had to have been placed up to or near the outer columns to hurl them IMHO. In David Chandler's North Tower Exploding video, you can see the many, many high speed squibs firing out just underneath the debris canopy keeping just ahead of the demolition wave. Beams are hurled upward in big arching patterns with thick smoke trailing from the ends.
The only real way to get a better understanding is to reverse engineer enough to the material that was found in the dust and apply it to concrete and to steel. THAT is the test Jesse Ventura should have had Van Romero do, however that's another topic altogether.
Of course its all just speculation
great discussion everyone..
dtg
TURNER CONSTRUCTION ?!?
"Fires were simply not hot enough for long enough to cause structural failure. The bowing is evidence however of a gradual structural weakening via other means."
Someone prepping the Building perhaps?
I don't know if I can listen to their....arguments again?
I've got in about 40 minutes and listening to Thomas use the same disproved arguments about Thermite ingredients makes me ill.
They simply do not address the clear evidence that Nano-Thermite is HIGHLY ENGINEERED!
Please tell me it gets better and they admit to some actual questions?
Regards John
Thermite, thermate, and nanothermite.
My understanding is that thermite is an incendiary. It is a mixture of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. It is not an explosive. It melts steel quickly and is used in welding and cutting.
My understanding of thermate is that it is thermite with sulphur added. Adding the sulphur lowers the melting point of the steel which has the effect of melting it faster than thermite.
Nanothermite is nano sized thermite. a nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter. 1 millimeter is 1 million nanometers.
At this scale, because of the intimacy of the mixture and the surface area compared to the mass of the components, the reaction is speeded up considerably. At this scale the reaction qualifies as explosive.
Am I correct?
I seem to hear these terms confused quite often.
Is it speculated that all three, thermite, thermate and nanothermite were employed in the demolitions?
It is my understanding that the possibility of also using conventional explosives have not been ruled out. Is this correct?
I appreciate any feedback on this. I just want to be clear when I discuss this topic.
Thermite, thermate, and nanothermite.
My understanding is that nanothermite composed of elemental aluminum and iron oxide alone is not an explosive, although it releases its heat energy more rapidly than conventional thermite. Organic compounds may be added to turn nanothermite into an explosive "super-thermite", by causing a rapid release of gas when the nanothermite burns. See page 29 of the document Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe: "The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.". See also: Formulation and Performance of Novel Energetic Nanocomposites and Gas Generators Prepared by Sol-Gel Methods. " We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions
whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale [1-5]. These energetic nanocomposites, in an attempt to prepare a high energy, high power energetic nanocomposite with controlled burning properties, are prepared by taking advantage of the unique nanoarchitecture and mixing properties provided by sol-gel chemistry. In addition, sol-gel chemistry has also allowed for organic gas generants to be “stitched” into the nanocomposite matrix." A demonstration burning of (allegedly) nanothermite, was made on Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" television program. This was with Van Romero of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The material burned fast and aggressivly, but did not explode. Presumably it was not formulated with the organic components and other structural components which would be included in an explosive formulation of nanothermite.
Thermate may have been used, as suggested by the FEMA report: "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting."
As far as I am aware, the possibility that conventional explosives were used has not been ruled out, although I am not aware of any evidence of the use of conventional explosives; nor am I aware of any studies having been conducted to look for evidence of conventional explosives.
Conventional thermite may have been used. There is certainly plenty of evidence that thermitic materials were used in abundance at the WTC site.
thank you wildbear.
Was that nano thermite on Jesse Ventura's program? It looked very similar to a thermite reaction to me, as I recall. From what I have surmised from my reading I would have thought nanothermite would explode. I didn't realize that it needed other ingredients to make it explode. I thought it was merely a function of size and intimacy of the mixture and the relationship of the surface area to the mass of the ingredients.
I thought superthemite and nanothermite were the same thing.
Thanks for clarifying this. I still need to bone up on it more to be able to communicate with confidence.
Quoting Van Romero:
Quoting Van Romero: "The first step in the experiment is to make the liquid superthermite. We mix it in with a paint... and then we have our super-thermite liquid paint. Once we make the mixture in the lab, we take it out into the field to do the test." The mixture is then painted on to a steel beam and ignited. I am unable to distinguish what appears in the video from ordinary thermite. No damage to the steel beam is evident from the video; the video moves too quickly and at too long a range to see much detail. They do not show the beam after the burning is complete. Romero asks, "Does it burn long enough and hot enough so that we have structural failure?" Ventura's program cuts it off there; the question isn't answered. The formulation of the "superthermite" is not described in any detail. Neither Romero nor Ventura seem interested in presenting a scientifically satisfying answer to the questions surrounding the alleged use of nanothermite at the WTC; at least not in this demonstration. You are probably correct; the terms superthermite and nanothermite seem to be used interchangeably. The stuff that Van Romero demonstrates doesn't appear to be an explosive, but he's definitely calling it "superthermite".
This may help clear the air a little
although it's not conclusive.
http://nmskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/03/video-jesse-ventura-doesnt-want-wo...
Great job Richard Gage and Niels Harrit!
Thank you both for representing the truth. You were outstanding!
Here are my thoughts as I was listening to the exchanges:
To Dave Thomas:
It doesn't take a physicist to see the obvious reality that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It is a duck, not a unicorn, which is analogous to the official explanation which you support.
Your claim about the dogs is laughable. Why was this important element of evidence not mentioned by NIST?
What do they do, bark once if it is a human and bark twice if it is an explosive?
You are taking issue with NIST when you postulate that the damage of WTC 7 was relevant to its collapse.
You defend NIST's secret computer models.
Design flaw, my ass.
Have the architects or structural engineers of WTC 7 been sued for their substandard design? Successfully?
Why did they need WTC 7 to come down? That is what a real investigation could find out.
Your regurgitation that Larry Silverstein was referring to evacuating the firemen from the building when he said "pull it" is a lie. The building had been evacuated soon after the towers were hit that morning. There were no firemen in the building.
You guys, Richard and Niels, did a wonderful job. I am proud of your good work and thankful that you are such a big part of the movement.
Keep plugging.
Thanks again.
An Architect does not a public speaker make!
Unfortunately being an Architect does not a public speaker make.
I feel Richard Gage is unable to deliver a concise and eloquent message that the general public can easily understand.
Gage begins the debate with a wealth of information that the uninitiated would find hard to understand or digest. Let alone the fact that he is on a poor quality phone line.
Even when quoting Larry Silverstein's infamous “Pull it” remark, which Gage attempts to do twice, he is unable to do so with out constant verbal stumbles and fluffing.
Surely, by now it is known what the questions will be and the style of attack used to support the official story. Gage should be prepared with short and direct answers.
Another option would be to find a spokesman for A & E for 9/11 Truth that is articulate and authoritative.
I am often surprised at how eloquently Jesse Ventura makes his points without necessarily relying on the minutia of the issue.
I need some clarifications here...
This was an incredible debate, I thought Richard and Neills really had Mr Thomas and Mr Johnson on the ropes. The NMSR team of Dr Thomas and Johnson really seemed to be grasping for straws where there were none or grasping for strawmen. Also, the NMSR team really didn't seem to understand what the nano-thermite says or it they really didn't read the NIST reports or the Energetic Material paper. The nano-thermite material had carbon in it giving it an explosive property. Only speculating here but it would seem that gasses couldy lower the reaction temp? They keep arguing using traditional thermite properties and this NOT your grandfathers thermite.
Some clarification here for our engineering contributers:
1. Dr Thomas seems to think that the top of the building falls,(bldgs 1 and 2) on the lower half. There is minute but measurable impact (in the miliseconds) that slows the descent, but then jumps from 18mph to 25mph? Then another small impact with a measurable slowing down (impact) and then speeds to 31mph? This is a 6 to 7 mph acceleration in the space of 1 story (12ft?). Is that even possible? Of course, the energy overwhelms the structure at the impact point and the floor gives way. But doesn't the energy from the impact travel down the entire length of the building? He makes it sound like (to me anyway) that only the top floor absorbs the impact. His theory also seems not to include any absorption of energy from the impact on both top and bottom structures too. ( can't away Tony Z's rebuttal paper)
2. Mr Thomas also states that we (the truth movement) greatly underestimate the energy of the impact. He has an experiment on his website which should be viewed so you can see his math. He is taking impact measurements by dropping items onto a scale. But this is just the point we are making. In order for him to get his measurement, he must first drop an item through nothing but air. His experiment presumes no resistance. Additionally, his math formula uses 'g' for gravity in his calculation. We KNOW (as in the case of tower 1) that it descended at 2/3g. He seems to forget this fact and calculates with 'g' or is my understanding way off base here. I was only a B student in Calc.
3. WTC7 was listing or tilting? There is a video of a firefighter stating the same thing. Where? How? In every photo, none of the buildings show a lean, a tilt, a list, nothing. But what I need help here is that Mr Thomas says there are photos showing the outside columns bowing inward. We've all seen the photos he is referring to. But where I need clarification is the fact that the bowing only occurs on one side of the building? Wouldn't it need to occur across all of the columns to keep the roof line level as we see? If the columns were being "pulled in" on only one side, there's no mechanism for the other 3 sides to fail. Am I off?
4. Richard never seems to mention this enough, but one single column bringing down the entire structure? What about redundancy? Wouldn't that prevent any structure from failing like WTC7 did? Has Dave Thomas ever played "Jenga" before? Also, RG doesn't mention enough about NIST's model and how it is not even remotely close to observation.
Those were some of my immediate questions based on what I heard in this debate. I got to say the NMSR team did not fair very well IMHO. Score another on the side of truth.
Peace all and thanks to all who can assist me in my questions.
DTG
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy
I replied to Dave Thomas on the JREF forum
on a thread started by Thomas himself this past Saturday about the Coast to Coast debate between him and Richard Gage. My comments to him start on page 11, he responded on page 14, and I countered once more.
He is pulling numbers out of thin air as far as any velocity loss occurring in the descent of WTC 1 is concerned. He has no proof to support his assertions.
On top of that the velocity loss he does claim of 1 mph is far too small to provide for the energy needed to continue collapse.
Thanks Tony
I tried to find the thread but didn't it. Would you have the link? I think he is making stuff up too. He's using the old technique of "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull$hit."
Can you detect any impedance of the downward motion using a higher frame rate? Its the camera that determines frame rate isn't? no the software? He doesn't show he obtained his raw data as David has. Thanks again Tony
Dan
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
- Albert Einstein
Here is the link to the thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183483&page=11
Dave Thomas is trying to say it was impulses which were responsible for the 1/3rd g resistance to the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 and that the acceleration measured was an average and not constant. He simply reverse engineers velocity loss values over short durations to get to an average acceleration of 2/3rds g. However, there are a couple of severe shortcomings with what he is doing which show it to be bogus.
First, the velocity drops he is limited to, while still allowing for a 2/3rds g average acceleration, are far too low to account for the energy dissipation required for the column deformation necessary to continue the collapse. His claim of the velocity drop of 19 to 18 mph at the first collision between floors is farcical. We conservatively calculated the velocity loss here to be 14.4 mph for just the column deformation, while not considering any other energy drains such as building vibration, heat generation from friction, and sound generation.
Second, the Verinage demolitions prove that an impulse capable of continuing the collapse would cause a significant deceleration and velocity loss at the roof, which are capturable with standard video frame rates. Thomas wrongly assumes it can't be seen as a separate phenomena, due to its after affects, and that it simply averages itself in due to an insufficient frame rate.
We did not look for an impulse itself in our research for the Missing Jolt paper, as it would happen too fast for the camera speed. However, there is another way to determine if it occurred. What we did was to conservatively estimate how much kinetic energy would be dissipated by column deformation and from there could determine what the velocity loss should have been in a natural collapse and compared it to what was observed. Since the velocity would take a significant time to recover to pre-impact velocity we looked for a lower velocity than pre-impact after the impact. We were measuring every 167 milliseconds and the velocity recovery would have taken about 800 milliseconds, at the existing fall rate, so if any real dynamic load had occurred we would have seen its after affects as a lower velocity than pre-impact, just like we do in the Verinage demolitions.
In my brief discussion with him, on the JREF forum, Thomas would not confront these issues.
In a structure with a factor of safety of at least 3.00 to 1 the only way the upper section of it can fall through it at 2/3rds g, without a dynamic load, is if about 85 to 90% of the integrity of the structure was being consistently removed unnaturally, leaving only 1/3rd of the minimum strength necessary to support the static load with no reserve. Gordon Ross has previously described it as a weight being dropped in and moving down through custard. I tend to agree with him, in that the lower section was being turned into a custard like consistency, and it had nothing to do with dynamic loads, because they provably weren't occurring.
quack quack
It's a duck.
Where are the psychologists for 9/11 truth?
DAVE THOMAS HELPS COVER-UP MURDER OF THOUSANDS
I can’t believe that guys like Dave Thomas still have the balls to basically look at us in the eye with a straight face and tell us Building 7 was NOT a controlled demolition. I've been in construction all my life and living here in Las Vegas I’ve been exposed to many controlled demolitions (the Aladdin for one) and I don’t take lightly guys like Dave Thomas helping covering up the murder of 3.000 of our fellow citizens. Especially since the collapse of these buildings violates very basic laws of physics – like Newtons Law of falling bodies. I KNOW HE’S LYING – HE KNOWS HE’S LYING – AND IT’S STARTING TO PISS ME OFF!!!
I'm sure when you find out where Dave's paychecks come from, either directly or indirectly, that will tell the story
Richard, I think you did a hell of a job in the debate.And look forward to seeing you in Las Vegas in November.
to debate or not too debate
is really not the proper question.
the proper question is: what are the most
important facts and analysis for the 9-11 truth
movement in the year 2010?
but, i assume richard gage accepted a debate format
because the alternative was no airtime.
given that choice, the weaker position must almost always take the debate, especially if there is some balance, even if not 50-50.
so his appearance on any radio program with millions
of listeners, if not, in this case, tens of millions of listeners, is all good.
i did not listen to the entire debate. but what i heard
from the opponents of gage's argument/thesis did
not, in any way, impress.
what gage has done is tremendous.
others can do different educational work, on different
aspects of 9-11.
there is an inevitable division of labor in a grassroots
movement seeking to raise consciousness.
but, in the end, people within the movement will always debate amongst themselves which aspects of the alternative truth are more important for the unbelievers to be forced or encouraged to address.
clearly, some people do not understand basic physics.
i believe those who carried out the operation assumed they would be in almost total control of the events' post news framing work, the manufacturing of consent, as non truther noam chomsky would put it.
and, at least inside the usa, they have.
most especially inside the beltway.
but, as someone who has worked in the field of human rights, all one can do is keep on doing what you can.
my sense is there are better arguments than controlled demolition to reveal the untruth of the official story, as i have posted elsewhere, such as the destruction of the pentagon's own database on al qaeda, operation able danger.
others have their own preferences for "the achilles heel" of the official story.
some need just see bush reading "my pet goat" to believe it was an inside job.
others will never believe the son of bush sr. could have possibly been involved, nor the former secretary of defense under bush sr., vp cheney, because they cannot imagine bush sr not knowing what cheney and his son knew. and they cannot imagine him going along with it.
lots of folks view bush sr. as a decent man. they just cannot wrap their head around his son and former defense secretary doing 9-11.
it speaks to the secret world of the bush family having been well protected for decades now. at a minimum.
many people cannot imagine the saudis and the pakistanis working with agents of the us government to carry out such an attack.
scientific evidence cannot overwhelm emotion and deeply embedded cultural and political belief systems.
9-11 truth movement public street events reveal the power of emotion to overwhelm civilized debate and dialogue.
and so it goes. the logic of the evidence is not always so compelling to millions of ordinary people for many complicated reasons.
for those who are willing to consider, gage's work is enormously important
and when push comes to shove, a debate involving one of the movement's best activists is always a good thing.
Debates not worth the time and energy
In 2009 the evidence was conclusive that explosives took down 3 skyscrapers. Why do we need to keep defending that which has been proved?
The audiences are mostly the "choir", anyhow.
On-air debates tend to start more fractures inside the truth movement and divert from real progress.
Defense of the evidence should only be in "print"...not TV or Radio.
Need to focus more on enlightenment of reluctant ant-war groups. IN my opinion, these groups have been infiltrated to keep 9/11 out of the "actions". I wonder why?
I agree, they are a waste of time
It's great entertainment for truthers, but that's where the importance of these debates begins and ends, IMHO. We have to assume that at least some of these people who are willing to debate are planted dis-informants. Their job is to disrupt and distract and to introduce seemingly logical arguments that undermine the facts that we are trying to present. And by giving them a platform we are helping them in their mission.
Add to that these debates are all over the map regarding content, it is next to impossible to isolate the most important points and they typically get dismissed, as we see here.
IMO, we should not go looking for debates. We should only debate if we are the ones being sought out, and not the other way around. And if we do get into debates, they should be among peers, ie., architect vs. architect, or physicist vs. physicist, pilot vs, pilot, etc, etc. These mismatched debates have their own inherent problems and when you add the complexity of 9/11 issues, they tend to become a free-for-all, with no redeeming outcome.
They waste the time of people like Gage, who's talent and energy would be better used in knocking on the doors of thousands of architects and engineers who haven't yet heard the full 9/11 story.
I truly believe that our leaders should have a policy of "NO DEBATES." Serious inquiry and dialogue with people having opposing views is welcome. but debates..............No.
In the real world of debating, there are rules and the moderator is a arbitrator and everyone knows what the rules are and agrees to follow them. I have yet to witness a 9/11 debate where the rules are adhered to -- by either side (I recall one in Britain a few years ago that came close) -- and therefore it's nothing but verbal masturbation.
I am a little worried about Gage's Sept 8-9 debate in DC and IMHO it's not a good idea. It runs the (unnecessary) risk of coming across as a WWF show. If we "win" the debate (who's the judge, anyway?) what will it really prove? But if it comes off bad so close to the 9/11 anniversary, we will look really foolish. I see no measurable gain in the outcome of the scheduled debate so why take the risk?
But I'm just one person with one opinion.
"The audiences are mostly the "choir", anyhow."
This is probably true of "Coast to Coast" audience.
Maybe they will begin to speak out as we do.
We all know that those speaking out is but a tiny fraction of those that know.
The more we get the message out there, the more we get it out there.
Recently a 911 newbee pointed out to me
That the twin towers fell in exactly the same way. Each collapse was symetrical and virtually exact. This person doesn't know anything about physics or thermite but felt that two buildings would never fall exactly the same. They said what are the chances of that if they were not planted with explosives to do just that. I thought it was a great point from an honest skeptic.
We all know alot about physics
We just don't all know the formulas on the blackboard. We all know that if you kick a person in the back of his/her right knee that he/she is going to fall to the right. The north tower was a center hit, and the south tower was a corner hit. We all know that they are not going to fall in the exact same way (absent controlled demolition).
I am sick of the "I don't know anything about physics"excuse to abandon one's own brain. We all know a lot about how material behaves in the material world. We live with material.
When the apple fell on Sir Issac Newton's head, it did not have a formula written on it.
When David Chandler and Steven Jones and Neils Harrit saw building 7 come down, they didn't need to do any calculating to understand what they were looking at. All the calculating came after the realization.
Proof by calculation does not seem able to overcome emotional blockage from psychological trauma.
Pulverization
The word "PULVERIZATION" needs to be used. That is exactly what was happening in mid-air. It's perfectly visibly apparent. For those that are willing to see it. Others choose blindness. We have GOT to stop using the word "collapse".
About Dave Thomas
It was also apparent that Dave Thomas, while trying to defend Silverstein's "pull it" remark, he had his own doubts. "It" is not what you refer to firemen as. "Them" might seem plausible. "It" gives away the lie.
Another thing occurred to me. When you got the kind of $$$ Silverstein got, you can guess how many shills he could buy. Same with government.
"DEMOLITION" works for me
"DEMOLITION" works for me
Someone once stated: "there were no pancakes, just pancake mix."
Dave Thomas
Dave gives the example of: If you set a bowling ball on your foot everything is fine but if you drop the ball from 12 feet onto your foot, then it's going to break the bones in your foot. This is probably true. What he doesn't discuss is what would happen if you dropped the bowling ball from 12 feet onto another bowling ball.
The destruction would be virtually equal and opposite.
Dave please review the chapter on Newtonian Physics.
Also what accounts for these extremely rapid, RE-accelerations? Are you claiming that there is actually Black Holes in the basements of Towers 1,2, and 7.
Based on the horizontal accelerations observed alone, your vector physics does not add up, at all.
Even conceding to your theory, (I do not), can only account for at best 15% of the destruction observed.
Chaz
How about dropping the bowling ball 12 feet onto a STRONGER
bowling ball? Is the weaker bowling ball going to destroy the stronger, without destroying itself?
Are not the lower stories that carry more weight built far stronger than the upper stories that carry less weight?
Bowling Balls?
I agree, a better analogy might be a duck pin bowling bowl dropping on a regular ten pin bowling ball, but either of these are vastly more sufficient than the bowling ball falling on your foot mis-direction by the shill.
missed the point...
Ok, both of you (Charles and zmznzm) have missed the point. The issue is not what the ball hits, but where does the '12feet' gap come from?? Given that they the debunkers are alleging it was a crush down event.
A gap of any kind is a contradiction of the debunkers own 'crush down' arguement.
New Mexicans for Science and Reason.
How do we investigate this group of whores?
They can't believe what they say themselves.
They are obviously getting paid.
I had a hard time listening
I had a hard time listening for this reason. Richard has gotten too verbose... Accurate, comprehensive and scientific but he misses making the simple point.
He was asked several times at the beginning about the cause of the collapse. Each time Richard takes the opportunity to expand on his points and so on. In my opinion, totally missing the point. The cause.... explosions. That's a one word answer that would have said much more than he tried to say in those answers.
This stuff doesn't need to be explained, it explains itself. People only need to be shown the truth by bringing it up, by keeping it simple.
Cudos to all involved.
trained dogs
I've never heard Dave Thomas' argument that the rescue dogs at ground zero were trained to recognise explosive materials - has anyone ever heard this argument before (and if so is there any truth to it) or has it just been plucked out of thin air?
Dogs
Are trained to recognize taggants. Therefore, explosives without taggant can easily avoid detection. Energetic materials, such as nano-thermite, are impossible to detect, as the ingredients of nano-thermite in WTC dust, for example, are simply carbon, silicon and finely ground (nanosized) iron oxide and aluminum grains. Taggants are complex, unique molecules specifically designed for detection.
(Trust me, the "debunkers" were lying again. As always.)
A shaggy dog story
I pressed the issue and got them to reveal the source of their K9 investigators. As you might expect it's a ruse. The dogs are trained to detect nitrites [fertilizer bombs like OK and the TT '93] and barium ][military grade thermate]
They werelooking for survivors and not explosives.
They would not detect the nano-thermite because it does not contain barium.
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothe...
Yeah
btw, someone voted you down, and it wasn't me. Voted you up.
IMO, thermate, thermite and nanothermite are beyond detection if the formulations exclude components the dogs were trained for. Indeed, barium nitrate is optional, not mandatory.
See also this tidbit on Wikipedia:
"Whilst detection taggants are universally used, this is not the case with identification taggants; in particular there are arguments that there may be minimal benefit in practice to law enforcement agencies compared to the cost to industry of the taggant. One reason cited is that most terrorist attacks use homemade explosives, for instance in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and in the Oklahoma City and Omagh bombings. Contamination of the site is also cited as a problem, since countless different taggants might be present at a crime scene from, for example, explosives used to obtain the building materials."
However, caveat lector: no citation is provided for the above paragraph.
I think we're at the point
I think we're at the point where debates no longer help the progression of the issue. Debate benefits the official story as it keeps it tied up and makes it appear as if they have a leg to stand on. Really, it should be abundantly clear at this time 10 years on. The mainstream media and garbage programming like Coast to Coast needs to be circumnavigated. They all represent the wizard behind the curtain pulling on ropes and pushing buttons to generate their special effects to help boost their brainwashing of the masses. If I were A&E for 911 Truth, I would just simply avoid these sensationalist American style shows and prod on to influence academia and independent media where the intelligentsia for society resides. Get to the intellectuals and get to the grass roots of knowledge. The masses fed by the mainstream media are too dumb. The mainstream media is too dumb. Make your own path and look to influence a less known sector of society. Case in point, there isn't a single 911 Truth book at my college. The subject is taboo. And the kids are being brainwashed at alarming rate.
Please post an MP3
Posting an MP3 in Youtube snippets is impractical..Furthermore, Youtube has repeatedly been shown to be an unreliable, capriciously censoring hosting partner. We need an MP3 to spread and store on many hard disks, not just Youtube's.
The "debunkers"
...are circulating an mp3, why aren't we? This is useful for transcribing, etc. etc.