Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[tsig]

I am a concerned citizen.

Like you, I believed the Official Conspiracy Theory about 19 nut-jobs getting by our military and flying a plane into their headquarters until I saw this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

By the time WTC 7 went out of sight I knew it was a CD. This is an easy call. It fell straight down without distorting. As it turns out, it fell at FFA [free fall acceleration] for ~100 feet. As a physicist you should understand the significance. For a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed. Bending columns provide resistance and prohibit FFA.

That's why I asked how far you assumed the top portion fell at FFA. There were 38 core columns and about 120 exterior columns that would have to be simultaneously removed for the top section to fall at FFA.

As Dr. Sunder said:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

[/FONT]Their computer model bares this out. The moment frames [a steel belt every other floor] hold the exterior columns together. The exterior frame is folding up, providing resistance and prohibiting FFA. [FONT=&quot]

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg[/qimg]
[/FONT]

Amazing! You just looked at it and formed your conclusion, no math or analysis needed but only your non-trained eyeball.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No comment required really.

No matter what you try to say, the problem for those who want to say WTC 7 took 16 seconds to collapse is that by all indications the collapse of the east penthouse was a separate and distinct failure and was not part of the mechanism which brought down the entire building moments later.

This is proven by the fact that all of the motion and indications of failure are occurring in the upper east side when the east penthouse goes down. There are no external indications of the failure moving laterally across the building right after the east penthouse goes down, and there are none down low where the main building failure had to take place across the entire structure.

The reality is that the east penthouse came down with some failure apparent in the upper east side, there was a short pause, and then the entire building came down suddenly, in less than 7 seconds and in full freefall for over 100 feet or eight stories just after it initiated. That is impossible to have happen short of a controlled demolition.

 

[carlitos]

Sorry Carlitos, but it is generally important to know someone's background when they inject themselves into a controversy.

1 - There is no "controversy."
2 - Rule 12 - "Address the argument, not the arguer." If you don't like the Membership Agreement, you don't have to post here.

What is truly creepy are the numbers of anonymous people involved in the debate on this issue.

Whether you realize it or not, many people in the 9/11 "truth" movement are mentally ill. They suffer from sociopathic personality disorders at a disproportionate rate. At least one of them has stalked one member here, and a quick search on youtube reveals all kinds of craziness on their parts. A handful have committed murder just in the past few years. I choose not to reveal my personal information for this reason, among others. My arguments stand on their own merits, as per the Membership Agreement and Rules of the forum.

The fact that you wish to compromise your personal and professional life by aligning yourself with liars, charlatans, con men and the ignorant and mentally ill "truthers" on whom they prey for funds... is not my problem.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

1 - There is no "controversy."

Incredible!

Whether you realize it or not, many people in the 9/11 "truth" movement are mentally ill. They suffer from sociopathic personality disorders at a disproportionate rate. At least one of them has stalked one member here, and a quick search on youtube reveals all kinds of craziness on their parts. A handful have committed murder just in the past few years. I choose not to reveal my personal information for this reason, among others. My arguments stand on their own merits, as per the Membership Agreement and Rules of the forum.

The fact that you wish to compromise your personal and professional life by aligning yourself with liars, charlatans, con men and the ignorant and mentally ill "truthers" on whom they prey for funds... is not my problem.

I have been to several events where problems with the present official explanation of the events of 911 were discussed and I just haven't seen the kind of things you are discussing. The movement professes non-violent activism and from what I can see that is true.

As for someone like Dave Thomas he is already known to the public and at least tells us of his part time teaching at New Mexico Tech so your argument does not apply to him as he is beyond keeping his identiity secret and has injected himself in a large way into this debate. For that reason his full background and associations should be known. Many people think it important to know someone's background and motivation when they take a certain side of an issue.

Concerning aligning oneself with liars and con men, I think those who reject the need for a new investigation are aligning themselves with liars and con men, namely George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It isn't even controversial as to whether or not they lied to get us into Iraq.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Gage is in it for the money, no one can be that stupid.

Richard Gage has taken a reduction in his income since becoming involved in the fight for the truth about 911, and he did not have to do that, so what you say here is total bunkum.

It takes minutes to figure out 911

Not for you, as you obviously haven't figured it out yet.

 

[GlennB]

No matter what you try to say, the problem for those who want to say WTC 7 took 16 seconds to collapse is that by all indications the collapse of the east penthouse was a separate and distinct failure and was not part of the mechanism which brought down the entire building moments later.

What are you saying? The building core collapsed through fire to the E, but the rest was CD'd? The CD in the E was mistimed?

This is proven by the fact that all of the motion and indications of failure are occurring in the upper east side when the east penthouse goes down.

'Motions and indications' whose existence you denied earlier today? Those ones?

The reality is that the east penthouse came down with some failure apparent in the upper east side, there was a short pause, and then the entire building came down suddenly, in less than 7 seconds and in full freefall for over 100 feet or eight stories of that fall just after it initiated. That is impossible to have happen short of a controlled demolition

Which would require high explosives. There are precisely zero indications of high explosives during your proposed CD.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What are you saying? The building core collapsed through fire to the E, but the rest was CD'd? The CD in the E was mistimed?

Which would require high explosives. There are precisely zero indications of high explosives during your proposed CD.

I am saying both the collapse of the east penthouse and that of the entire building were separately caused by unnatural forces.

You have no basis to say there are no indications of explosives. The window breakage itself is most likely due to just that.

 

[beachnut]

Sorry Carlitos, but it is generally considered important to know someone's background when they inject themselves into a controversy.

What is truly creepy are the numbers of anonymous people involved in the debate on this issue.

My background is known and if I can't agree with those who support the present official story at least I can respect them as human beings if they are transparent with their identities and backgrounds.

What school did you go to?
What high-rise buildings have you built?
And why have all your ideas on 911 failed to pan out?

You have a CD delusion, and you can't say who did it, or how they did it. You don't understand fire science. Where did the penthouse go?

What about the Pentagon? Was it CD too? Do you have similar delusions about terrorists flying jets? Tony, it has been over 8 years; there were zero explosives used on 911 and that was proved by the evidence. Or are you with the insane thermite claims?

You are at a skeptic forum! We would be your army if you had something. But your work is total nonsense. I can't figure out how you can ignore reality and continue trying to move the rubber tree plant.

 

[carlitos]

Incredible!

Indeed. It is incredible that you would think that a small group of non-qualified, dishonest charlatans like Gage, Chandler and yourself represent a "controversy." You are nothing. Not even a blip on the RADAR of society. When I turn off my laptop, you disappear. What peer-reviewed engineering studies can you point me to?

I have been to several events where problems with the present official explanation of the events of 911 were discussed and I just haven't seen the kind of things you are discussing. The movement professes non-violent activism and from what I can see that is true.

So now I need to explain logical fallacies to you, too? Are the "truthers" that you impress with your engineering this credulous?

As for someone like Dave Thomas he is already known to the public and at least tells us of his part time teaching at New Mexico Tech so your argument does not apply to him as he is beyond keeping his identiity secret and has injected himself in a large way into this debate. For that reason his full background and associations should be known. Many people think it important to know someone's background and motivation when they take a certain side of an issue.

I can't believe you don't realize how creepy this is. Associations?

• Where did you go to school?
• What were your grades?
• What structures have you built, as an engineer?
• What professional associations do you belong to?
• What offices did you hold with these associations?
• What awards or commendations have you received for engineering?
• Who are your close associates in the 9/11 "Truth" movement?
• Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Concerning aligning oneself with liars and con men, I think those who reject the need for a new investigation are aligning themselves with liars and con men, namely George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It isn't even controversial as to whether or not they lied to get us into Iraq.

non-sequitur. You are not very good at this; you don't even seem to understand who's running the country now.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Whether you realize it or not, many people in the 9/11 "truth" movement are mentally ill. They suffer from sociopathic personality disorders at a disproportionate rate. At least one of them has stalked one member here, and a quick search on youtube reveals all kinds of craziness on their parts. A handful have committed murder just in the past few years. I choose not to reveal my personal information for this reason, among others. My arguments stand on their own merits, as per the Membership Agreement and Rules of the forum.

The risks of revealing your personal info go beyond the scope of this conspiracy theory really. I've had incidents where people got a hold of my AIM screen name and managed to keylog my IM conversations and effectively harass me...

I remember the case a couple years back where one individual was contacted and the member responsible was banned for it, but you could pretty much replace him with just about anyone... Anyway the discussions' been done already... if you choose to put your name out there then that's your business, however I really don't give a crap about who somebody is or their profession. If the claims being made hold water they will do so with absolutely zero discrimination over who put it out. End of story. Your name isn't going to save you if your information is a bunk.

You have no basis to say there are no indications of explosives. The window breakage itself is most likely due to just that.

Of course we do. There's no such things as hush-a-booms. Of course let's not forget that the moment the lack of noise is pointed out thermite is used as an excuse. Gage does it every time, and he repeated it on C2C. If you still want to entertain that idea however with the window breakage you might be interested in framing it into a question I've been asking C7 to expand on here.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dave, it sounds to me like you are a part-time professor at New Mexico Tech and are presently teaching one class there. Is that true? If so, what else do you do for a living?

Sorry Carlitos, but it is generally considered important to know someone's background when they inject themselves into a controversy.

What is truly creepy are the numbers of anonymous people involved in the debate on this issue.

My background is known and if I can't agree with those who support the present official story at least I can respect them as human beings if they are transparent with their identities and backgrounds.

As for someone like Dave Thomas he is already known to the public and at least tells us of his part time teaching at New Mexico Tech so your argument does not apply to him as he is beyond keeping his identiity secret and has injected himself in a large way into this debate. For that reason his full background and associations should be known. Many people think it important to know someone's background and motivation when they take a certain side of an issue.

Speaking of motivation, what is your motivation for inquiring into Dave's private life in this public forum and this particular thread?

Dave isn't anonymous, and he isn't hiding. It doesn't take much Google-fu to discover his educational and professional background, employment, or guitar.

It looks to me as though you are once again trying to create a false impression that your adversaries are anonymous nobodies.

When you run into someone like Dave, whose identity, education, and professional accomplishments cannot be denied, you resort to this kind of innuendo:

Concerning aligning oneself with liars and con men, I think those who reject the need for a new investigation are aligning themselves with liars and con men, namely George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It isn't even controversial as to whether or not they lied to get us into Iraq.

As carlitos observed, that has nothing to do with Dave. On the other hand, your innuendo and disingenuous personal questions have a lot to do with the quality of your arguments.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Speaking of motivation, what is your motivation for inquiring into Dave's private life in this public forum and this particular thread?

Dave isn't anonymous, and he isn't hiding. It doesn't take much Google-fu to discover his educational and professional background, employment, or guitar.

It looks to me as though you are once again trying to create a false impression that your adversaries are anonymous nobodies.

When you run into someone like Dave, whose identity, education, and professional accomplishments cannot be denied, you resort to this kind of innuendo:

As carlitos observed, that has nothing to do with Dave. On the other hand, your innuendo and disingenuous personal questions have a lot to do with the quality of your arguments.

Wow! I only asked what else he did for a living as he obviously can't live on the payment received for teaching one class at New Mexico Tech. Most people wouldn't consider asking somebody what they do for a living prying into their personal life.

The only people I have ever seen reject this question are those doing something illegal or embarassing and anonymous individuals who defend the present highly questionable official explanation of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

You really should let Dave answer for himself. He is a big boy.

Dave Thomas' analysis of the descent of WTC 1 is a circular argument and fallacious. I have already shown this to be true. While it isn't likely to fool the technically knowledgeable and informed it is clever enough to fool those less technically inclined. It is obvious that I am asking if Dave has a possible agenda based on who he works for and that is a fair question. Science is generally considered to be more likely to be fairly performed when it can be shown that the scientist is disinterested.

 

[carlitos]

delete - never mind

 

[beachnut]

Richard Gage has taken a reduction in his income since becoming involved in the fight for the truth about 911, and he did not have to do that, so what you say here is total bunkum.



Not for you, as you obviously haven't figured it out yet.

Gage is total bunkum and if he believes what he says he is insane, mentally ill.

There are two possibilities on Gage. (there could be more)
1. Gage knows he is spewing lies but need the money so he made up his cult of idiots on 911 issues.
2. Gage is total bonkers and he believes his ideas.

There is no super-nano-thermite used at the WTC it leaves evidence. It is a proved fact thermite would leave evidence. There were no explosives; explosives leave BLAST effects, no blast effects were found.

WTC7 burned and collapse; it is exactly what buildings do when fires are not fought. They were out of control fires, no body fought the fires, there was no WATER.

19 terrorists were solely responsible for 911. Why you apologize for them is a mystery. BTW, BUSH is not the current president! WAKE UP

You must hate Bush a lot to linger on your 911 delusions without evidence to back you up. Publish your paper in a real journal yet? It would make for a good laugh. Jones seems to be nuts, his journal was made up to publish his insanity after he was fired.

Your work is a joke; proof, you can't get it published or accepted in a real journal. The CD delusion is a joke, a sick joke backed up by fantasy, 8 years of failed moronic fantasy. Prove me wrong! I am an engineer, but it only takes a grade school education to debunk you and the entire 911 truth fraud. Bush is not in office, wake up.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Wow! I only asked what else he did for a living as he obviously can't live on the payment received for teaching one class at New Mexico Tech.

Most people wouldn't consider asking somebody what they do for a living prying into their personal life. The only place I have ever seen this is with the anonymous individuals defending the present official joke we have for an explanation of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

You really should let Dave answer for himself. He is a big boy.

Dave Thomas' analysis of the descent of WTC 1 is a circular argument and fallacious. I have already shown this to be true. While it isn't likely to fool the technically knowledgeable and informed it is clever enough to fool those less technically inclined. It is obvious that I am asking if Dave has a possible agenda based on who he works for and that is a fair question. Science is generally considered to be more likely to be fairly performed when it can be shown that the scientist is disinterested.

You're so innocent, Tony.

You never thought of using Google. You never thought of making your off-topic inquiry via a private message. It never occurred to you that you could send email to one of the addresses he's posted on the World-Wide Web, or call him on the telephone at one of the numbers he's posted on the Web. It's so much better to inquire in this public forum, where you can add a bit of innuendo to every post.

I apologize for questioning your motives, Tony. I now see there was nothing to it beyond your pure, childlike innocence.

 

[GlennB]

I am saying both the collapse of the east penthouse and that of the entire building were separately caused by unnatural forces..

An error then. Oops.

You have no basis to say there are no indications of explosives. The window breakage itself is most likely due to just that.

I have every basis. The basis is the total lack of multiple, synchronised 130db CD blasts. Blasts which would blow out every window on many of the lower floors. Blasts that didn't happen. Visible flashes from high explosives? Entirely absent.

 

[tsig]

I am saying both the collapse of the east penthouse and that of the entire building were separately caused by unnatural forces.
You have no basis to say there are no indications of explosives. The window breakage itself is most likely due to just that.

What's an unnatural force?

 

[tfk]

WTC1 was different. It couldn't involve clean axial impact between column ends, by definition. The building only began to fall because columns were bending and/or connections breaking. Collapse initiation guaranteed a tangled mess of columns.

Right on the money, except a little soft on the assertion (IMHO).

It is provable - to anyone with a lick of sense - that it was 100% impossible for any columns to collide end-to-end during the first 3 stories. There WERE NO column ends within those stories.

The core columns were 3 stories high, they were not staggered, and the building has to fall 3 stories in order for an upper column surface to arrive at its FIRST possible mating lower column surface.

The peripheral columns couldn't collide because they were detached from the building & flying thru the air.

A competent consideration of the column joints (under tremendous compression & bending loads) guarantees that, when the connection fails, there will be enormous lateral dynamic spring-back motion of the failed ends. There has to be. There is no possible way for those columns joints to fail without there being enormous lateral loads & deflections.

The above is true regardless of whether the columns failed by buckling along their length or (far, far more likely) by bending at the joints.

You merely have to think about the column ends after the building has descended about 6 inches. You know the relative location of the mating surfaces before they failed (aligned end to end), & you know that steel cannot pass thru steel. Next, imagine the paths that the column ends had to take in order for the end of the upper column to be below the end of the lower column.

There were enormous dynamics involved. 1/4 second after the joints failed, the column ends were nowhere near each other.

The cornerstone of Tony's missing jolt theory - pure column end to column end collision - is utterly impossible.


Tom

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Wow! I only asked what else he did for a living as he obviously can't live on the payment received for teaching one class at New Mexico Tech. Most people wouldn't consider asking somebody what they do for a living prying into their personal life.

The only people I have ever seen reject this question are those doing something illegal or embarassing and anonymous individuals who defend the present highly questionable official explanation of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

You really should let Dave answer for himself. He is a big boy.

Dave Thomas' analysis of the descent of WTC 1 is a circular argument and fallacious. I have already shown this to be true. While it isn't likely to fool the technically knowledgeable and informed it is clever enough to fool those less technically inclined. It is obvious that I am asking if Dave has a possible agenda based on who he works for and that is a fair question. Science is generally considered to be more likely to be fairly performed when it can be shown that the scientist is disinterested.

In addition to teaching a class at New Mexico Tech, I am employed full-time there as a scientific researcher. I work in the seismological instrument division, a part of NMT, an academic institution. So, I work in academia, and teach a class.

Don't think you're fooling anyone with your casual dismissal of my analysis. And don't expect me to waste a lot of time trying to respond to your "analyses." You destroyed whatever credibility you may have had when you presented a totally incorrect and strawman version of my analysis as something I had actually said.

I don't bother with people that respond to what they think or want me to have said, rather than what I actually said. You had your chance, and you blew it. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

As I've stated already, we're done. Maybe Chandler can do better.

 

[beachnut]

... The only people I have ever seen reject this question are those doing something illegal or embarassing and anonymous individuals who defend the present highly questionable official explanation of what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

...

Are you naturally paranoid and prone to make up delusions? Wow

... questionable about the real story of what happen on 911; ... 19 terrorists did it. Why can't Gage answer his own questions when all the answers and evidence is available? Is he that stupid? Is the plot too complex for Gage to comprehend?

Plot, complex steps taken by 19 terrorists; did they have trouble memorizing the steps?
1. Kill pilots
2. Fly planes into large buildings

Why can't Gage grasp the complex plot of 911? Two steps too many? Is he nuts, or a snake-oil salesman fooling gullible to donate to his travels. What caused Gage's quixotic quest for stupid?

Lucky 911 truth was not on Flight 93; can't figure out 911 in minutes and can't take action; 8 years, 911 truth still has the delusion of CD, and Gage is spewing lies on the radio. Gage has zero people in his cult who are capable of figuring out 911, they have suspended rational thinking to become followers in a club of no action save spreading lies.

The real conspiracy? How Gage fools people into believing lies and delusions. What failed those who fall for his idiotic claims? Gage drones drank the Kool-aid of failure and do nothing when they sign up for his cult. A worthless, harmless, do nothing cult which fools those fringe people who believe in woo. ... unnatural forces, like witches and demons? lol, UFOs, Bigfoot? Start the unnatural forces thread!