• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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

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

Ian - pls clarify for all.

Thanks!

Richard
Click to expand...

And there you have it. Gage is the one proposing this elaborate "structure," and the C2C people aren't buying it. For my part, I've said "We will be ready and willing to provide cogent summaries and interesting discussions on any of the following topics, and others not listed:"
  • (1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum collapse.
  • (2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads; Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
  • (3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition? Wires, melted beam puddles, explosion sounds, thermite reaction products, etc?
  • (4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
  • (5) Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
  • (6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer" truthers deny that planes hit the towers/pentagon.

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

Cheers, Dave
 
The Almond said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your whole post was perfect.

Letting Gage dictate what will be discussed is downright disgusting.

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

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

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

Dave T and the rational side will want to give them a recpectful debate, since they have their reputations at stake. These retards don't deserve the respectful type of debate that Dave and co will bring. Too bad some anonymous guys from here can't go on and rip them a new a-hole, since THAT'S what they deserve.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
  • (1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum collapse.
  • (2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads; Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
  • (3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition? Wires, melted beam puddles, explosion sounds, thermite reaction products, etc?
  • (4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
  • (5) Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
  • (6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer" truthers deny that planes hit the towers/pentagon.
Click to expand...

That's a good list.

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

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

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

Appoint a hitman from your group to belittle them and their woo.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
  • (1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum collapse.
  • (2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads; Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
  • (3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition? Wires, melted beam puddles, explosion sounds, thermite reaction products, etc?
  • (4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
  • (5) Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
  • (6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer" truthers deny that planes hit the towers/pentagon.
Click to expand...
If you don't mind interjecting a little bit of my own experience discussing on one or two of these issues... for #2 keep in mind the possibility that he will use either Chandler's, or Szamboti's claim that there was no such thing experienced at the moment of collapse initiation (the "no jolt" contention). If this comes up be aware that their assumptions are made after an erroneous interpretation of the limiting case model worked on by Bazant and Zhou. This will tie in with the #1 bullet in your list here. You'll find more detail on this if you look through the physics toolbox thread (though the subject comes up multiple times elsewhere too). If you'd like more detail up front me, and I'm sure a number of others would be willing to condense it, I just don't feel it appropriate to do immediately in this thread.

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

This is a very good point. There is actually no one-size-fits-all trutherism; rather, there are distinct groups: No planers, NIST nitpickers, NORAD "stand down" MIHOP'ers, etc. Gage and Harritt concentrate on Twin Tower/7 World Trade collapse issues from different angles, and they combine elements of picking at NIST's reports as well as providing some original "research" :lolsign: (Harritt, with Steven Jones; Gage has done none, to the best of my knowledge), but what binds them is that they both hold a belief in the use of explosives and/or (whichever is more convenient) incendiaries as having been used to bring down the towers. What they don't pay attention to are the no planers. So bringing up no-plane conspiracy peddling is about as useful as discussing geocentrists when arguing against Apollo Hoaxers: They're both pushing astronomy pseudoscience, but other than that, neither have any real relation to one another.
 
Seymour Butz said:
Hammer them with words like Bazant used in reply to Bjorkman - ridiculous, unsubstantiated, without merit..... you get the picture.
.
Click to expand...

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

If he complains if Dave brings up no planers, maybe he could also be told that Gage has been sympathetic to no plane at Pentagon theories in the past and people like Jim Hoffman calls these claims hoax's and disinfo in the same way.Still, I think no planes at the WTC are very fringe so I would only bring it up if he starts talking about his list of "experts" when one of them is Heiwa, who they promote on their website specifically.
 
Edx said:
I'd also that in 9 years truthers do not have a single paper in a legitimate and well respected journal. One that spams scientists and where editors quit in embarrassment are not legitimate or respected.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

George Noory I presume?
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
No, it'll be Ian Punnett, as mentioned above.

As for me knowing about Heiwa's antics, check out my May 19th presentation to NMSR.

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

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

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

When he hems and haws and ultimately refuses, tell him to STFU. Every time he opens his mouth afterwards ask him “Did you change your mind on releasing your samples to the scientific community.. No?... then STFU.”
 
16.5 said:
Harrit is going to be there, huh? As soon as he starts babbling on about his tests showing Super Thermite in dust collected in the vicinity of WTC, remind him that scientific discoveries must verifiable, testable and repeatable.

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

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

This may be jumping the gun. Harrit has dust with no provenance and no acceptable chain of custody. Testing it would be absolutely worthless as the data would be laughed out of every reputable scientific journal in the world. If anything, Dave should hammer home the concept of chain of custody, random sampling methods and valid forensic analysis techniques.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Not to worry, these are Gage's demands, not mine. I've told the C2C producers that I am not in agreement one little bit. Indeed, Gage said today this:
Click to expand...
I'm more than certain that you have this debate well in hand. If you can keep Gage on relevant topics (such as you have listed below) and demand that he provide evidence and proof, you'll win handily.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
No, it'll be Ian Punnett, as mentioned above.

As for me knowing about Heiwa's antics, check out my May 19th presentation to NMSR.

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

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

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

I'd recommend listening to a few of his past shows to get a feel for the way he handles guests.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Not to worry, these are Gage's demands, not mine. I've told the C2C producers that I am not in agreement one little bit. Indeed, Gage said today this:

And there you have it. Gage is the one proposing this elaborate "structure," and the C2C people aren't buying it. For my part, I've said "We will be ready and willing to provide cogent summaries and interesting discussions on any of the following topics, and others not listed:"
  • (1) Towers did NOT collapse in "free fall"; there was resistance at every step. Truther measurements actually support gravity/momentum collapse.
  • (2) Dynamic Loads can be many times the equivalent static loads; Truthers get this flat wrong with make-believe physics.
  • (3) Where is evidence of Controlled Demolition? Wires, melted beam puddles, explosion sounds, thermite reaction products, etc?
  • (4) Thermite is very difficult to use as beam cutter, especially on vertical beams.
  • (5) Truth Movement adopts mutually contradictory positions: thermite was used because explosives would have been too loud; explosives must have been used because beams were flung hundreds of feet.
  • (6) There were thousands/hundreds of eye-witnesses to the airplanes hitting the towers/pentagon; but, "No-planer" truthers deny that planes hit the towers/pentagon.

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

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Dave
Click to expand...

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

And since this is the first instance of a steel framed high rise collapsing due to fire, and the first time that single column failure has resulted in global collapse, precedence isn't exactly your friend.
 
RedIbis said:
So it looks to be more of a debate about perceived prevailing Twoofie theories, as opposed to having to debate and defend official theories, such as NIST's WTC 7 single column collapse theory.

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

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

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

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

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

/say, Princess, you ever gonna get around to explaining how Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit?
 
Dave Rogers said:
You didn't ask for physical evidence from WTC7. You asked what physical evidence NIST relied on to support their theory. If you don't understand your own posts, that's hardly my problem.

Dave
Click to expand...

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

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom