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

[ProBonoShill]

Great advice tfk.

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

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

 

[Edx]

Great advice tfk.

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

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

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

 

[tfk]

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

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

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

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

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

Silly me...]

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

All temps far above the ignition temp of paper.

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

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


Tom

 

[Oystein]

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

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

I'm no controlled demolition expert, but Jowenko seems to know the basics of CD, even if he has no qualification in blowing up high rises:



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

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

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

the Agenda according to Gage

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

• Introduction
  • 9/11 review, 2 airplanes - 3 WTC High-rises brought down
• WTC 7 – Introduction & Fires
  • Intro, No plan impact, etc., NIST Fire Simulation, Photo & Video Evidence
  • Q: What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities
    that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer extensive damage
    and extensive fires leading to complete “collapse”?
• WTC 7 – In Free-fall
  • Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance
  • Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?
• WTC 7 – FEMA Report
  • Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.
• WTC 7 – NIST Report
  • Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
  • Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
  • Whistleblowers fired
    • Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
    • Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
• WTC 7 – Fires:
  • “Normal office fires”
  • No precedent
  • extraordinary hypothesis
• WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples
  • RJ Lee report (with vaporized lead, aluminosilicates); USGS Results, EPA WTC dust signature; (Gas) temperatures given by official reports, (solid) temperatures required to explain evidence
• WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses
  • Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
  • Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero
• Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
• WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
• WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction
• WTC Twin Towers – Introduction
  • The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns), Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling) Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first 2/3 Free Fall
• WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report
  • Destruction of evidence
  • Test results compared to official hypothesis (Steel Temps, Floor tests, Fireproofing loss)
  • UL involvement in investigation and in producing the WTC fire resistance plan
  • No Analysis of Collapse
  • Evidence omitted
• WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness
  • Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions
  • Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”
  • Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)
  • Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete
• No Title
  • Lateral Ejection
  • Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
  • Total Building Destruction
• Overall Concluding Remarks

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

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

Let er rip!
Cheers, Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

Dave

 

[carlitos]

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

 

[The Big Dog]

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

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

"Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples."

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

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

 

[Edx]

Hi Dave,

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

[*]Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

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

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

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

[*]WTC 7 – NIST Report

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

• 
  
  Most of that is very vague. I assume by computer simulations he is going to refer to the NIST simulation that shows a lot of twisting and buckling but which doesnt seem to be that apparent in the videos. I cant remember what people here were saying about that so i would check and make sure you have that answer.
  
  Whistleblowers fired most likely refers to Kevin Ryan. Read up on why he was actually fired so that he cant pretend Ryan ISNT a lying asshat.
  
  

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

  
  uuuuh, yes?
  
  
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

  [*]WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses

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

  [*]Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;

  
  
  
  

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

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

  [*]Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples

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

  [*]WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction

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

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

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

  [*]WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report
  [*]Destruction of evidence

  
  ?
  
  

  [*]Evidence omitted
  [*]WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness
  [*]Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions

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

  [*]Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”

  
  huh?
  
  

  [*]Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)

  
  Wheres the explosions?
  
  

  [*]Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete

  
  Where's the intense explosions that can "pulverise concrete"?
  
  He is of course ignoring the fact that most of the dust cloud is dry wall and there was very little actual concrete in the buildings. Add to that that real explosive demolitions aren't pulverising the building either, its still the actual building collapsing that is destroying it.
  
  He will probably also ignore that the thick black dust that occurs in the onset of the collapse only occurs on the fire damaged floors after it gets past that its a normal grey colour.
  
  

  [*] No Title
  [*]Lateral Ejection

  
  Where's the gigantic intense explosions that can fling steel around?
  
  (nano thermite can't make it quieter Richard)
  
  
  

  [*]Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos

  
  Does he think they would all be pilled up undestroyed?
  
  Why doesnt this happen in verinage demolitions? They dont use explosives.
  
  
  

  [*]Total Building Destruction

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

 

[Edx]

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

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

 

[carlitos]

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

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

This makes sense to me.

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

 

[Edx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[carlitos]

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

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

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

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

 

[RedIbis]

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

Prove he lost a lot of money.

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

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

Jesus....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from Russia Today
I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example you could talk about that complete failure at burning man or the experiment on National Geographic.

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

Quote from Greening
I've already done a calculation, (see my post from a few days ago), of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. And, by the way, you have not commented on this calculation as you said you would. Nevertheless, my conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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


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

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

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

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

Oh and please ask Harrit, where the hell the samples are for the confirmation of their nano-thermite paper. This guy here in germany really wants to test that stuff and he isn't the only one.

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

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

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

 

[The Big Dog]

Prove he lost a lot of money.

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

 

[DGM]

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

 

[Edx]

Prove he lost a lot of money.

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

 

[Edx]

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

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

 

[The Almond]

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

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

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

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

1. Richard Gage presents the Alternative 9/11 Theory (15 min)
   • Who did it
   • When
   • What did they do it with
   • Who financed them
   • Who gave the orders, organized the plot
   • How it happened
2. Cross examination and questions from Dave Thomas
3. Dave Thomas presents the evidence gathered by the US government, the NY state and local governments, the FBI, CIA, The 9/11 Commission, NIST and the US Congress.
   • Who did it
   • When
   • What they did it with
   • Who financed them
   • Who gave the orders and organized the plot
   • How it happened
4. Cross examination and questions from Gage
5. Closing remarks by both opponents

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