• 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.

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

beachnut said:
Gage is a lair, he is equal to Benedict Arnold, Tim McVeigh except Gage only talks and is harmless except for his lies which mislead other harmless people. Like you, all you do is post nonsense like this and have no evidence, which makes it impossible for you to make a rational or valid point.

Gage is a watered down traitor, the best he can do is apologized indirectly for terrorists who figured out 911 before it happened. Frauds like Gage never get past the failure mode unless he comes up with some fantastic new efforts which outweigh his stupidity on 911.


Gage is either dumber than a box of nails, or knowingly pushing lies to get fools to donate and him spread lies.

Fraud or an idiot. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

I think we all know that the first can be excluded and the second is a matter of opinion.
 
Gage confirmed by 911 truth cult posters of delusions he is not a fraud. Ergo, Gage is an idiot who can't figure out 911 given 8 years and all the answers given. Now that is extra credit failure. Nixon was not a crook, Gage is not a fraud.



Not a single person has supported Gage's claims with facts and evidence. ZERO

When will someone support Gage and try to prove one of his claims? Never (I have to answer for 911 truth, they don't answer anything, it is too hard to do). All Gage's claims remain lies. No takers.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
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.
Click to expand...

Real quick question tony...

what university do you teach for?
what papers have you published?

As soon as you have anything to the level of Dave Thomas, feel free to answer... but looking at your "work" one must assume that you aren't fit enough to polish Dave's lab equipment...
 
bardamu said:
Nobody's denying the two events are related, and nobody's suggesting it's a coincidence.

It's more like a guy who gets shot in the arm and loses some blood, then moments later gets shot through the head and goes down.
Click to expand...

Bard... welcome back.. did you have a good vacation?
No it is NOT like that.

It is like a guy getting shot in the arm, having some bleeding visible and then collapsing because the gunshot severed an artery.

Good ole p. I missed you.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Hey, can somebody teach me how to embed a YouTube (so you click the JREF disclaimer and then you're watching it)?

Or is that something only super-duper-master-wizard-demigods can do?

Meanwhile, here's my YouTube on the outrageous stuff Gage pulled at the end of the debate. Enjoy.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave... it is easy.

when you want to imbed a youtube video you need 2 things.

one is the
youtube imbed code. for here it is bracket yt bracket [ yt ] then the second thing is to put in everything after the = in the youtube url then close the imbed code with [ /yt ] (take out the space between the bracket and the yt [yt .... etc...]

so it would be [ yt ]blahblahblah[ /yt ]

another way to see it, it to go and quote another person who has imbedded a youtube video in their page, and you can then see the YT embed code.
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Truthers Lie, Mel Odious, Thanks! :D
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, although i doubt it convinced any of the CD/thermite believers... I'll take a moment to say I'm glad you also brought up the issue that expecting thermite to create molten metal for weeks to months at a time was pure and utter nonsense.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
You are mixing apples and oranges, and confusing WTC7 with WTC1. They are different. The discussion about "2 seconds of freefall" applies ONLY to WTC7, as is obvious from the many images you've posted of WTC7 models & velocities. I've said in this regard "For a brief moment, a part of WTC7 wasn't supported as it collapsed. This in no way proves controlled demolition, sorry."
Click to expand...
That in "brief moment" WTC 7 fell ~100 feet. Ergo, 7 to 8 floors of supporting structure was removed.

I brought up WTC 7 to make the point about FFA. Shyam Sunder, stated the obvious:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Your theory has the top section falling at FFA for 12.5 feet and getting up to 19mph, but that is impossible as it requires instantaneous free fall acceleration of the upper section.

There were ~120 exterior columns and 38 interior columns remaining. A collapse would not be instantaneous. The columns would buckle or bend for part of that distance.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
carlitos said:
1 - There is no "controversy."
Click to expand...
Incredible!
Click to expand...

Not really. According to US Labor Dept. stats, there are 1.7 million+ engineers in the United States. According to Dick Gage, there are 1200 members of his anti-semitic kaffe-klatsch.

That makes 1,416 real engineers for every one person like you, Tony. There are so few of you that it is indistinguishable from non-existence.
 
carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're not the first person here that Tony Szamboti has done this too here, Carlitos.

He used to stalk Gravy back when he actively posted in 9/11 CT. Demanding personal information and calling him a Jew over and over and over again.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Hey, can somebody teach me how to embed a YouTube (so you click the JREF disclaimer and then you're watching it)?

Or is that something only super-duper-master-wizard-demigods can do?

Meanwhile, here's my YouTube on the outrageous stuff Gage pulled at the end of the debate. Enjoy.

Dave
Click to expand...
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

How can you say the structure under the upper part of the north face collapsed and then the upper part at fell at free fall? The top part did not hang there by a sky hook while the structure below collapsed.

Look at their computer model. The interior had collapsed over a period of about 8 seconds and then the exterior columns buckled but "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."

ETA:: The supporting structure under the top section must be removed on 7 to 8 floors in order for the top part to fall at FFA..

http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

Edited by LashL: 
Replaced image with link. Do not repeat the same images over and over again in a thread. Instead, use a link in subsequent references to the same image.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TruthersLie said:
No it is NOT like that.

It is like a guy getting shot in the arm, having some bleeding visible and then collapsing because the gunshot severed an artery.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable analogy from a debunker's point of view. Carlitos's analogy wasn't just "a little facile". It was a deliberate misrepresentaion of what Tony was saying.


TruthersLie said:
Good ole p. I missed you.
Click to expand...

Did you ever work out which of the three visible corners of WTC 7 fell first?
 
Christopher7 said:
There were ~120 exterior columns and 38 interior columns remaining. A collapse would not be instantaneous. The columns would buckle or bend for part of that distance.
Click to expand...
Posing negligible resistance, as I already told you. Why are you dismissing this?

Christopher7 said:
ETA:: The supporting structure under the top section must be removed on 7 to 8 floors in order for the top part to fall at FFA..
Click to expand...
Quoting NIST, again (sigh):

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.​
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
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.
Click to expand...

The reality here is that you published erroneous information about work that I have done with others and now have the nerve to feign irritation when confronted about it.

My dismissal of your analysis was hardly casual and was in no way a strawman and you know that. It is obvious that you can't defend it. It appears that rather than admitting your error you have chosen to feign irritation as a reason not to answer. You and Ryan Mackey must be using the same notes as he won't answer when proven wrong either.
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
That's a reasonable analogy from a debunker's point of view. Carlitos's analogy wasn't just "a little facile". It was a deliberate misrepresentaion of what Tony was saying.

Did you ever work out which of the three visible corners of WTC 7 fell first?
Click to expand...

I have worked out that it doesn't matter.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
It appears that rather than admitting your error you have chosen to feign irritation as a reason not to answer. You and Ryan Mackey must be using the same notes as he won't answer when proven wrong either.
Click to expand...
Said who has me on ignore because he can't refute my arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom