Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[jhunter1163]

Somebody here (SamIAm?) is editing it and will put up a downloadable file.

 

[bill smith]

But what Johnson pointed out specifically is that Harritt just paid to get his article published.

Just as many other scientists are doing today at Bentham. Believe me they wouldn't be wasting their money on a peer-review that is less than bulletproof . Their caareers depend on it.

Just bacause streams of debunkers on the jref line up to say that Bentham is a phoney does not make it true.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Thanks for the props and suggestions. I had no net access the whole debate - I call the NWO.

Anyway, looks like I was able to upload the entire Institute of Theoretical and Experimental 9/11 Physics right before the debate, and right before my router went wanky.

Loved that Box Boy Bingo!

G'night, all!
Cheers, Dave

 

[bill smith]

Thanks for the props and suggestions. I had no net access the whole debate - I call the NWO.

Anyway, looks like I was able to upload the entire Institute of Theoretical and Experimental 9/11 Physics right before the debate, and right before my router went wanky.

Loved that Box Boy Bingo!

G'night, all!
Cheers, Dave

Well done Dave. It can't have been easy.

The take-away message for me was:-

'' The phones are melting down '' Thank you God,

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is actually good news for us.

It shows, once again, there is nobody "on the fence." Nobody at all.

Also, since all those listening are basically dyed-in-the-wool Truthers, if anyone's mind is changed, it's a win for rationality. I expect it to stay status quo, of course -- never once thought this debate would go anywhere new. It's quite surreal talking to these people in debate.

What I find surreal is your not admitting your two major errors in our debate.

It is now proven that the factor of safety for the core columns was 3.00 to 1 for the loads they actually had on them. You insisted it was significantly less than this and tried to say that I was overestimating the energy they would absorb in a collision. Of course, in the Missing Jolt paper we don't even get into the factor of safety and simply use the known yield strength and sizes of the columns to determine their energy dissipation, so it isn't clear why you even made this comment other than to try and create the impression that I was wrong about the column strength. The reality is that you were wrong on this point in every possible way.

The tilt in WTC 1 was not anywhere near the 8 degrees that you portrayed it to be when the upper section started descending. In fact, it was provably no more than 1 degree and there is no chance the columns could have missed each other. This has been ascertained using the simple geometry you suggested.

When are you going to publicly admit that you erred in these two cases due to your insistence on assuming NIST was correct? Remember you said "NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes". Well it turns out they do, and you need to be a man and admit it.

 

[SezMe]

This was a confirmation of Mackey's "ignore 'em" stance. Gage threw so much crap up against the wall that Dave was unable refute all of it. Sadly, I score a win for the truthers.

FWIW, I personally know the first caller who got through. To give you some idea of his critical thinking skills, he believes that there are human skeletons buried in coal seams millions of years old. I can only imagine his conversation with the screener.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Congratulations Dave. I was unable to catch the debate, but the effort is respected.

Just as many other scientists are doing today at Bentham. Believe me they wouldn't be wasting their money on a peer-review that is less than bulletproof . Their caareers depend on it.

Just bacause streams of debunkers on the jref line up to say that Bentham is a phoney does not make it true.

Got your PhD from a Crackjack box? In fact, hardly anyone publishes in these things. I just went through the Bentham Open Applied Linguistics Journal and you can too. Then you won't have to make things up to talk about topics you don't know anything about.

Let me tell ya there BS, I've published in open access journals and there is no review process at all. My article even had the typos I left in when it went on the net. The journal actually put typos into it and wouldn't change them when I asked. Do I have any reasons to beliebe Betham is just as bad? Sure. Just the fact that Dr. Steve got the boot from his school and no one else will go anywhere near him shows you how well respected this work is.

I doubt you care. So why am I wasting my time?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Thanks for the props and suggestions. I had no net access the whole debate - I call the NWO.

Anyway, looks like I was able to upload the entire Institute of Theoretical and Experimental 9/11 Physics right before the debate, and right before my router went wanky.

Loved that Box Boy Bingo!

G'night, all!
Cheers, Dave

Cheers, Dave, and well done!



I think the debate went really well for you.

I was actually pleasantly surprised with the host and the format. It was good that he gave you equal time, and giving you both half an hour individually was very fair (especially since you got to go second and address Gage's points ).

 

[bill smith]

Congratulations Dave. I was unable to catch the debate, but the effort is respected.



Got your PhD from a Crackjack box? In fact, hardly anyone publishes in these things. I just went through the Bentham Open Applied Linguistics Journal and you can too. Then you won't have to make things up to talk about topics you don't know anything about.

Let me tell ya there BS, I've published in open access journals and there is no review process at all. My article even had the typos I left in when it went on the net. The journal actually put typos into it and wouldn't change them when I asked. Do I have any reasons to beliebe Betham is just as bad? Sure. Just the fact that Dr. Steve got the boot from his school and no one else will go anywhere near him shows you how well respected this work is.

I doubt you care. So why am I wasting my time?

Do you have a link to the article so that I can see the quality and thereby assess the kind of open-access scientific journal that you used ?

 

[bill smith]

This was a confirmation of Mackey's "ignore 'em" stance. Gage threw so much crap up against the wall that Dave was unable refute all of it. Sadly, I score a win for the truthers.

FWIW, I personally know the first caller who got through. To give you some idea of his critical thinking skills, he believes that there are human skeletons buried in coal seams millions of years old. I can only imagine his conversation with the screener.

Another win for the Truth you mean. I can assure you that we will win virtually every debate from here on in. That's why I think all prominent debunkers will withdraw into the shodows like Mackey and refuse to debate.

Stonewalling is the future for your guys. Furthermore I suspct that the jref 9/11 subforum will be shut down in the near future along with other sceptic forums. They are basically an embarrassment to the perps now.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Somebody here (SamIAm?) is editing it and will put up a downloadable file.

It's looking like it might be easier than I thought it would be. The software I used broke it up into mostly either the shows or the commercials. News is really the only thing I'll have to cut out (to keep the size down) though I will keep the bumpers in there so people won't think that I cut out stuff out of bias.

 

[SezMe]

Another win for the Truth you mean.

No, that's not what I mean. Don't put words in my keyboard.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The NMSR site is in error

Dave,

I went to your NMSR site per the link provided on this thread and have to say I was surprised to see that you had Dr. Bazant's early hypothesis of a 31 g dynamic load posted there. This has been shown to be impossible by those arguing for the present official hypothesis as well as those arguing against it.

First, it isn't possible for an impacting object with a factor of safety of 3.00 to 5.00 to transmit a dynamic load of 31 g's. The upper section would have come apart and that would have been the end of the pile driver.

Second, Dr. Bazant is off by a factor of ten on the axial stiffness of the columns in the tower. Their stiffness was 7.1 GN/m not 71 GN/m. Maybe it was a misplaced decimal point, but nonetheless his stiffness estimate is seriously erroneous.

Third, your test of loose rice in a bag does not legitimately represent loose rubble as the bag provides a restraint causing the rice to act somewhat in unison, which would not be true of loose rubble developed in a building collision.

With the real axial stiffness of 7.1 GN/m the largest dynamic load possible was 11 g's and even then, with the full mass of the upper section participating, the impacting structure could not survive that and thus could not transmit it. This is not to say that a dynamic load was not possible but it would have to be a lower value to conform to the observation of the upper section remaining somewhat intact past the first several floor collisions.

However, to have a dynamic load the the impacting object needs to decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g and the amplification depends on how many multiples of g the deceleration value is. There was no deceleration in the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 and the perimeter walls of the upper section were stiff enough to transmit it if there had been any. Thus the lack of deceleration or constant acceleration of the upper section proves there was no dynamic load.

Apparently, in an article to be published in the Sept. 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Bazant himself has finally entered the debate on this issue and attempts to argue that the velocity drop would have been imperceptible at the roofline. His opinion is refuted by every single Verinage demolition, where deceleration of the upper section does occur and is very perceptible and measureable at the roofline.

The evidence is that there was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1. Ryan Mackey recognized this in our debate on Hardfire and tried to argue that the upper section fell on the floors due to the tilt causing misalignment of the upper and lower columns. Unfortunately for his argument, it has been shown that the tilt was not nearly significant enough to cause the columns to miss each other, and there should have been a perceptible jolt if the collapse was natural. The only reason there wouldn't be is if the column strength below was being largely removed in an unnatural way.

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

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[T.A.M.]

Congrats to the debaters, but by god these debates now make me feel sad...it is as if someone stuck them in a "Groundhog Day" scenario, and everyday they (the truthers) wake up to 2006 again.

TAM

 

[angrysoba]

Thanks for the props and suggestions. I had no net access the whole debate - I call the NWO.

Anyway, looks like I was able to upload the entire Institute of Theoretical and Experimental 9/11 Physics right before the debate, and right before my router went wanky.

Loved that Box Boy Bingo!

G'night, all!
Cheers, Dave

Good work, today! I enjoyed listening to it although I think the format of introducing more and more speakers (including the callers, especially the callers!) made the talk become a bit frayed at the edges and lose focus.

When things were more focused such as on Gage's attempts to explain massive beams being hurled by gigantic explosions which were heard by hundreds of people yet...er... really quiet because it was produced by nanothermite (oh and regular explosives as were heard by the firemen on the telephone etc...etc...) his contradictions became obvious. And you did well persuing him on that. I think all the advert breaks unfortunately cluttered things up too much.

The main thing I got from the debate is that Gage is more of a conspiracy theorist than I had thought.

His usual routine of trying to be as conservative as possible in his accusations and trying to make a case of "reasonable doubt" completely and unexpectedly fell apart when he started rattling off all of those "false flag" attacks (USS Liberty, Lusitania, Pearl Harbor...etc...etc...). That was a bit of a new side to Gage that I hadn't seen before (even though it was obviously there somewhere).

Cheers!

 

[Myriad]

Since I missed the debate, perhaps someone can fill me in... what proposition regarding a future public, legislative or judicial decision was debated?

Surely all those people going to all that effort wouldn't have been so feckless as to attempt to "debate" about past events.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I missed the last leg of the show because of how late the C2C program runs in my area but the first 2 hours I caught didn't address much any proposed legal or legislative measures. I can't speak for the rest to be honest...

ian is asking how much thermite;

Harritt - dont know.

Gage of course said earlier in the show, as much as 3 to 10 tons of it...

Neils Harritt says that the Windsor/MAdrid tower, that the Concrete collapsed and the steel remaineD!!!!!!!

Dammit!!! I missed it Anyway gotta listen to it later, did anybody explain tho them that the windsor tower had a concrete core? (Please say yes!!!! )

Windsor Tower:

Harrit says the concrete collapsed and the steel remained.

Looks like again, i'll have to play catch up... I have to admit that claim is not just bizarre if true, but a first

"Small fires"! That's a line!

Which building did he bring that up for? Just curious

Heh and first time in history... looks like it's true you can read 'em all like open books.... I'm surprised it took over two hours for Gage to bring that up.

 

[TexasJack]

Just as many other scientists are doing today at Bentham. Believe me they wouldn't be wasting their money on a peer-review that is less than bulletproof . Their caareers depend on it.

Just bacause streams of debunkers on the jref line up to say that Bentham is a phoney does not make it true.

Apparently nobody is wasting their money Bill, since nothing has been published at all this year, and very little the year before.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

 

[CompusMentus]

Any link to a recording of the show? Please.


Compus

 

[jhunter1163]

Surely all those people going to all that effort wouldn't have been so feckless as to attempt to "debate" about past events.

Sorry to say, Myriad, they haven't got a ◊◊◊◊.