Gage's next debate

[chrismohr]

Ooops I forgot three more ingredients for our aluminum soup: three cartridges of toner cartridge from an office printer: magenta, cyan and yellow. You know, the big cartridges that can be used to print thousands of sheets of four-color jobs. Let's see how brighty silvery the aluminum soup is when you pour them in too.

 

[Christopher7]

I have heard this argument the last two years. On the other side, I know the people who come to believe in 911 CD. Most are politically aware and dislike and distrust our government. Most are scientific laypeople like me. They're not stupid and don't like being told they are. They see government power increasing as a result of 911 and wonder if the government did more than just take advantage of the opportunity to do this. Richard Gage tells them about controlled demolition and provides evidence to validate their suspicions.

I have heard this brash and incorrect assumption many times. This threadbare propaganda canard demonstrates a false sense of clairvoyance. You haven't got a clue why people believe the three towers were controlled demolitions. You systematically deny the message and put all the emphasis on the messenger. People come to the conclusion that the three towers were CDs based on the evidence.

It was this video that convinced me that WTC 7 was a CD and therefore 911 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

So when they do research on the Gage presentation, they might look at the NIST Report which is written for the tech-savvy and their eyes glaze over.

Not so. The NIST reports are written in plain English for the most part. I have read the ones on WTC 7 many times and like the thermite paper, I understand all but the very technical parts.

You have not addressed the frauds that I found. The proof that the NIST reports are fraudulent is in the NIST reports.

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. The NIST fire induced collapse could not have started the way they posit.

NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

It could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m.

 

[Oystein]

...I have read the ones on WTC 7 many times and like the thermite paper, I understand all but the very technical parts....

Hi C7,
I haven't followed your debates here closely, so excuse me if I ask something that you have answered before. By "the thermite paper", I assume you mean the Harrit e.al. paper at Bentham? If so, do you agree with its conclusions, or would you rather reject them?

I am asking you this because I, too, have read that thermite paper many times over and understand it well, even most of the very technical parts, but I haven't much more than scanned the NIST reports on WTC7 so far. So your answer might give me a clue about how well you understand technical papers in general, and if I can trust your assessment of the NIST report.

 

[Animal]

I have heard this brash and incorrect assumption many times. This threadbare propaganda canard demonstrates a false sense of clairvoyance. You haven't got a clue why people believe the three towers were controlled demolitions. You systematically deny the message and put all the emphasis on the messenger. People come to the conclusion that the three towers were CDs based on the evidence.

It was this video that convinced me that WTC 7 was a CD and therefore 911 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

Wow, you were convinced by a video of a portion of the collapse? A few second out of a hours long event? Gullible is the first word that comes to mind.

Not so. The NIST reports are written in plain English for the most part. I have read the ones on WTC 7 many times and like the thermite paper, I understand all but the very technical parts.

You have not addressed the frauds that I found. The proof that the NIST reports are fraudulent is in the NIST reports.

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. The NIST fire induced collapse could not have started the way they posit.

NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

It could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m.

And once again you ignore the fact that the damage was already done by the fires. It is not like the structure returns to the way things were prior to the fire.

 

[chrismohr]

You're right Chris, I'm not clairivoyant and should not make assumptions about why people believe in 911 CD. But I do know people for whom the NIST report is too technical and threads like this one too insulting, so I still see value in making a clear, unthreatening layperson's explanation. People have told me this and I believe them.

"It [the fire that was out on the 12th floor] could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m." I can't speak to that with certainty, but post-fire thermal contraction could have been a contributing factor on that floor, in my opinion. This is not in the NIST report, but after the thermal expansion and sagging, any beams that cooled down may have frozen into that sagged shape and then begun to contract, putting more stress on the perimeter columns as they were bowed inward. Generally there was a lot of damage on that floor, and specifically things may have continued to get worse due to thermal contraction.

 

[Christopher7]

You're right Chris, I'm not clairivoyant and should not make assumptions about why people believe in 911 CD. But I do know people for whom the NIST report is too technical and threads like this one too insulting, so I still see value in making a clear, unthreatening layperson's explanation. People have told me this and I believe them.

The NIST reports are a masterpiece of bombastic obfuscation and that is why some people have trouble understanding them IMnsHO.

However, understanding that a fire that has burned out cannot heat steel beams and cause them to expand is something nearly everyone can understand.

"It [the fire that was out on the 12th floor] could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m." I can't speak to that with certainty but post-fire thermal contraction could have been a contributing factor on that floor, in my opinion. This is not in the NIST report, but after the thermal expansion and sagging, any beams that cooled down may have frozen into that sagged shape and then begun to contract, putting more stress on the perimeter columns as they were bowed inward. Generally there was a lot of damage on that floor, and specifically things may have continued to get worse due to thermal contraction.

You need to read the report again. The NIST hypothesis is that thermal expansion, not thermal contraction, pushed a girder off its seat and that began the total collapse of WTC 7. There is no mention of sagging. Four hours of heat was applied to the entire area in 1 1/2 seconds which did not allow time for sagging.

The collapse began WHEN the heat was applied and the girder was pushed off its seat. There was no sagging, no delay, no cooling, no thermal contraction.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

it was this incomplete video that convinced me that wtc 7 was a cd and therefore 911 was an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2imq

ftfy

 

[Oystein]

Hi C7,
I haven't followed your debates here closely, so excuse me if I ask something that you have answered before. By "the thermite paper", I assume you mean the Harrit e.al. paper at Bentham? If so, do you agree with its conclusions, or would you rather reject them?

I am asking you this because I, too, have read that thermite paper many times over and understand it well, even most of the very technical parts, but I haven't much more than scanned the NIST reports on WTC7 so far. So your answer might give me a clue about how well you understand technical papers in general, and if I can trust your assessment of the NIST report.

bumped for Christopher7

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

It was this video that convinced me that WTC 7 was a CD and therefore 911 was an inside job. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

.....

When I read this confession and viewed the truncated WTC7 video, some thoughts went through my mind:


. He got conned, the collapse began 7 seconds earlier.

. Others like him get conned also by this deceiving video.

. There's a new sucker born every minute who'll in the future fall for this and get conned too.

. “A Truther is a Believer convinced by lies” my signature.

. C7 is playing his part in deceiving others.

. This battle against the irrationals is Sisyphean and will continue until one side is exhausted.

. If the irrationals win, the barbarians, voodoo man and witch doctor will rule until their society collapses and the circular synthesis is a new day where again “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.” - Paine.



"The world, that understandable and lawful world, was slipping away."
- William Golding, Lord Of the Flies

 

[ergo]

Hi Chris7,

You asked for proof that aluminum could be discolored by other things in the WTC fires and not be bright silvery. This aluminum soup recipe will resolve the question once and for all:

Melt one ton of aluminum in a strong steel container and bring to 1400 degrees F.

Add:
five padded office chairs
50,000 sheets of paper from filing cabinets
seven airplane seats
Lube oil of all kinds
12 computers circa 2000 with screens and all associated hardware
Six curtains
Five office dividers
The contents of seven randomly selected pieces of airplane luggage
Articles of clothing, hardware supplies, kitchen utensils, etc.
Fifty pounds of colored plastic items available in a typical office

So all these ingredients are collected in that one spot where we see the supposed molten metal coming out? Seven airplane seats? Office chairs? Lube oil? Or is the whole floor one big pool of molten aluminum by now? What actually are you saying here?

 

[dafydd]

The NIST reports are a masterpiece of bombastic obfuscation and that is why some people have trouble understanding them IMnsHO.

However, understanding that a fire that has burned out cannot heat steel beams and cause them to expand is something nearly everyone can understand.

You need to read the report again. The NIST hypothesis is that thermal expansion, not thermal contraction, pushed a girder off its seat and that began the total collapse of WTC 7. There is no mention of sagging. Four hours of heat was applied to the entire area in 1 1/2 seconds which did not allow time for sagging.

The collapse began WHEN the heat was applied and the girder was pushed off its seat. There was no sagging, no delay, no cooling, no thermal contraction.

Where did you study and what are your qualifications?

 

[Justin39640]

The collapse began WHEN the heat was applied and the girder was pushed off its seat. There was no sagging, no delay, no cooling, no thermal contraction.

So thermXte doesn't melt beams and columns, it pushes them?

I have to ask. Don't you feel like an ass being convinced by half of a video? Nothing made you wonder "why did they edit that part out" when you finally saw the whole collapse? How could you not be immediately suspicious? I know that when someone tries to hide half the story that raises a huge red flag for me.

 

[triforcharity]

So all these ingredients are collected in that one spot where we see the supposed molten metal coming out? Seven airplane seats? Office chairs? Lube oil? Or is the whole floor one big pool of molten aluminum by now? What actually are you saying here?

Please do try to follow along. This is not talking about the molten metal coming out of the tower. This is about the molten metal that was observed afterwards in the pile.

 

[Christopher7]

Hi Chris7,

You asked for proof that aluminum could be discolored by other things in the WTC fires and not be bright silvery. This aluminum soup recipe will resolve the question once and for all:

Melt one ton of aluminum in a strong steel container and bring to 1400 degrees F.

Add:
five padded office chairs
50,000 sheets of paper from filing cabinets
seven airplane seats
Lube oil of all kinds
12 computers circa 2000 with screens and all associated hardware
Six curtains
Five office dividers
The contents of seven randomly selected pieces of airplane luggage
Articles of clothing, hardware supplies, kitchen utensils, etc.
Fifty pounds of colored plastic items available in a typical office

For spice, Mix in melted Bronze, Brass, Magnesium and Zinc to taste.

To stir it up, add the following items which create explosions in building fires: HVAC equipment including condensors and compressors, Cleaning supplies, CRT type TV's and computer monitors, Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube (Elevator lift motors), hydraulic pistons found in office chairs, and UPS battery backups.

Cook for 80 minutes, then pour half of it it out the opening of a burning building for all to see. Pour the rest of the aluminum soup into a debris pile and dump water on it. You'll probably get lots of violent steam action but if you're careful like the 911 firefighters were you should be OK.

Finally, melt the steel pot that was holding the soup and bring it up to 2800 degrees F. Pour the molten steel into a pile of debris and pour water all over it like the firefighters did on 911. Stand back; it will NOT behave in the same way!! In fact, it might kill you.

Special Cooking Contest: If you follow this recipe to the letter and my aluminum soup is a pure bright silvery color, I will send you a check for $91.1 (I've upped the ante by a factor of ten from my original contest offer)!

Sillyness

NIST made a baseless claim for which there is no precedent or scientific data. It is not up to me or anyone else to prove their baseless proclamation wrong. It is up to them to provide verifiable scientific data to back up that claim.

 

[Justin39640]

Question.
We know that planes are made of all sorts of exotic alloys. Titanium and magnesium react pretty energetically to burning, correct? What if the source to ignite something like that was arcing from shorted UPS batteries? Maybe there were reactions that did melt a very small amount of steel. By coincidence not conspiracy of course.

 

[beachnut]

Sillyness

NIST made a baseless claim for which there is no precedent or scientific data. It is not up to me or anyone else to prove their baseless proclamation wrong. It is up to them to provide verifiable scientific data to back up that claim.

NIST says gravity collapse, they are right. You are the one who has to prove your baseless proclamation. Good luck, you have no tried yet, when will you step up to prove your claims? When will Gage?

 

[Oystein]

Question.
We know that planes are made of all sorts of exotic alloys. Titanium and magnesium react pretty energetically to burning, correct? What if the source to ignite something like that was arcing from shorted UPS batteries? Maybe there were reactions that did melt a very small amount of steel. By coincidence not conspiracy of course.

I remember from the NIST reports on the Twin Towers that their most likely explanation for one isolated observation during the office fires was a metal fire. These happen rarely in buildings for human occupancy, but happen they do. NIST could only speculate about what metal burned and why. There are plenty of candidates in a building, you don't need "exotic alloys". Aluminium will do if you get it to burn. Oh steel would do, too

However I'd be surprised if that would have melted much, if any, steel.

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Questions #6: Those Microspheres again

I've asked this before. Remember Richard Gage's "Big Five" things he demanded I must answer "or the debate is over"? Symmetrical freefall of Building 7, melted steel girders, iron microspheres, tons of molten steel or iron, nanothermitic chips? We've dealt with all of these, and I will call him on his efforts to shift the burden of proof on to me for every anomaly, but I will repeat one question to all of you:

The iron microspheres were "expected" to be found in the RJ Lee dust study; they weren't at all surprised to find them. They indicated they were created during the fires. Several of you have proposed that the iron microspheres were always in the building and could have come from 1) welders in the early 70s during construction of the buildings 2) fly ash from concrete 3) printer toner.

We are not bound by the findings of RJ Lee, and this could be a case of competing hypotheses-- or more than one hypothesis could be true.

My simple question may be hard to answer tho: can anyone provide me with a photo of iron microspheres in fly ash, clinging to a recently-welded steel beam, or in printer toner? Or, in support of the competing RJ Lee hypothesis that the iron microspheres were created during the 911 fires, can anyone show me pictures of iron microspheres that are known to have been created in a standard building fire?

 

[triforcharity]

Question.
We know that planes are made of all sorts of exotic alloys. Titanium and magnesium react pretty energetically to burning, correct?

Absolutely!



DOn't try this at home please, it's incredibly dangerous!

What if the source to ignite something like that was arcing from shorted UPS batteries?

You wouldn't need that.

Maybe there were reactions that did melt a very small amount of steel. By coincidence not conspiracy of course.

It would be like welding slag. It also wouldn't have stood out either, nor would it have remained molten more than a second or so.

 

[aggle-rithm]

NIST made a baseless claim for which there is no precedent or scientific data.

And yet experts take them seriously and ignore you.

Could it be you're doing it wrong?