Gage's next debate

[chrismohr]

"I am aware that there are persons posting who find Gage a pleasant person to speak to and a person who seems genuine."

Well, Oystein, that can be only me; to my knowledge no one else in JREF-land knows Gage personally. And yes, I have told him repeatedly that I am baffled that he believes in something so completely unbelievable to me. The JREF consensus seem to be that he is either insane or profiting from known lies. I know he is sincere. Using this paradigm means he must therefore be insane. He doesn't seem insane. He's very likable.

Maybe this one-or-the-other thinking doesn't really explain it. If you talk with Democrats and Republicans, you tend to get a whole worldview, and people's beliefs and reasons all tend to support their core values and world view. If you're at all openminded you know that people can be conservative or liberal, and have good reasons... but still, their worldview governs what they see. A worldview that sees extreme evildoing as an endemic, structural reality of the U.S. government generates a series of beliefs around stolen elections, 911 CD, the building of concentration camps for dissidents, inoculations being horrifically destructive and created solely for the profiteering drug companies, bin Laden and al Qaida not existing at all, etc etc etc.

I have a way of liking people with completely different worldviews. My wife both complains and praises me for seeing the best in people. I am certain Richard believes as he does sincerely and passionately. I've met insane people in prison and Richard is not insane, though his worldview is much darker than mine. And he says things like that steel frame buildings are made indestructible by fireproofing. Of course that makes NO sense to me. Richard's passionate advocacy of 911 CD is a mystery. I can understand someone disagreeing with me on military philosophy, the balanced budget, abortion, a philosophy of governance, etc. Not 911 CD. People are a mystery.

 

[beachnut]

"I am aware that there are persons posting who find Gage a pleasant person to speak to and a person who seems genuine."

Well, Oystein, that can be only me; to my knowledge no one else in JREF-land knows Gage personally. And yes, I have told him repeatedly that I am baffled that he believes in something so completely unbelievable to me. The JREF consensus seem to be that he is either insane or profiting from known lies. I know he is sincere. Using this paradigm means he must therefore be insane. He doesn't seem insane. He's very likable.

...

Gage paid himself over 70k from his scam. He knows he is pushing delusions, or he is incredibly stupid. Like selling vacuum cleaners door to door, his product is false information, he is good at selling it to the select few, gullible and not will to try and think for themselves. I have see Gage in videos, he is extremely personable, pleasant, and he does seem genuine. I agree, on his facade, but how can he be that stupid? How do you measure this degree of stupid? Or how do you grade his ability to appears to be genuine, to be the crafty snake-oil salesman; how do you grade his greed and ability to lie?

We have a personable liar. I have seen them in action since I was a small kid.
Options;
He is a liar, pushing false information to make a living. (survivalist, do anything to make money, telling lies only harms the idiots who donate to him)
He is dumber than a box of rocks on 911 issues. (dirt dumb lucky, making a good living)

He is friendly.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

"I am aware that there are persons posting who find Gage a pleasant person to speak to and a person who seems genuine."

Well, Oystein, that can be only me; to my knowledge no one else in JREF-land knows Gage personally. ...

I debated Gage a couple of times. He's friendly enough, but I suspect he is so committed to 9/11 truth that he hears what he wants to, not what his opponents are actually saying.

Here are several examples:


Hope that helps! Dave

 

[Oystein]

"I am aware that there are persons posting who find Gage a pleasant person to speak to and a person who seems genuine."

Well, Oystein, that can be only me; to my knowledge no one else in JREF-land knows Gage personally. And yes, I have told him repeatedly that I am baffled that he believes in something so completely unbelievable to me. The JREF consensus seem to be that he is either insane or profiting from known lies. I know he is sincere. Using this paradigm means he must therefore be insane. He doesn't seem insane. He's very likable.

Maybe this one-or-the-other thinking doesn't really explain it. If you talk with Democrats and Republicans, you tend to get a whole worldview, and people's beliefs and reasons all tend to support their core values and world view. If you're at all openminded you know that people can be conservative or liberal, and have good reasons... but still, their worldview governs what they see. A worldview that sees extreme evildoing as an endemic, structural reality of the U.S. government generates a series of beliefs around stolen elections, 911 CD, the building of concentration camps for dissidents, inoculations being horrifically destructive and created solely for the profiteering drug companies, bin Laden and al Qaida not existing at all, etc etc etc.

I have a way of liking people with completely different worldviews. My wife both complains and praises me for seeing the best in people. I am certain Richard believes as he does sincerely and passionately. I've met insane people in prison and Richard is not insane, though his worldview is much darker than mine. And he says things like that steel frame buildings are made indestructible by fireproofing. Of course that makes NO sense to me. Richard's passionate advocacy of 911 CD is a mystery. I can understand someone disagreeing with me on military philosophy, the balanced budget, abortion, a philosophy of governance, etc. Not 911 CD. People are a mystery.

Wish you would have properly quoted that - I don't recall having said thar, let alone the context.

I remember one JREFer met Gage by sheer coincidence in Washibgton D.C. maybe a year ago as he was talking on the street, and iirc there even was a video of the exchange. Forgot who it was.

Insanity is a term we often use rather loosely, and I don't claim to know how to diagnose it, and you certainly wouldn't be qualified to declare someone free of insanity. Insanity comes in various ways and degrees.

 

[Christopher7]

C7 said: floor 12 that supposedly started the collapse by thermally expanding the floor beams on floor 13 which supposedly pushed a girder off its seat, had burned out in that area over an hour before the collapse so it could not have started the collapse as NIST posits.

Chris what I was saying is that some people think NIST missed the detail of the further shrinking of the sagged beams after the heat went down. I'm not qualified to say one way or another... but this IS a disagreement with one detail of the NIST theory. What do you think of this minor VARIATION on the theory?

Chris,
This is not "a detail" or a "minor variation".
Thermal EXPANSION is their explanation for the start of the collapse.
"What some people think" is worthless. You can't make up something for them. They have issued their FINAL report and their thermal expansion hypothesis is impossible. They have not explained the collapse.

 

[dafydd]

Chris,
This is not "a detail" or a "minor variation".
Thermal EXPANSION is their explanation for the start of the collapse.
"What some people think" is worthless. You can't make up something for them. They have issued their FINAL report and their thermal expansion hypothesis is impossible. They have not explained the collapse.

And your qualifications are.......?

 

[chrismohr]

Chris,
This is not "a detail" or a "minor variation".
Thermal EXPANSION is their explanation for the start of the collapse.
"What some people think" is worthless. You can't make up something for them. They have issued their FINAL report and their thermal expansion hypothesis is impossible. They have not explained the collapse.

Christopher7,

This is a pretty rigid reply. I told you some people think that NIST may have missed the role thermal shrinking played in the collapse, and you don't deal with it at all. You just hammer away at the NIST quotes. In my line of work, guys who talk like that are called fundamentalists. What is your reply to this possible variation on the NIST Report which has been offered as a possible explanation of how a collapse could begin on Floor 12 after the fires had gone out and the temperatures had begun to drop again?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

This is a pretty rigid reply. I told you some people think that NIST may have missed the role thermal shrinking played in the collapse, and you don't deal with it at all. You just hammer away at the NIST quotes. In my line of work, guys who talk like that are called fundamentalists.

You are talking about religious beliefs but we are talking about an investigation to determine what caused the total destruction of WTC 7. NIST was charged with explaining the collapse and they said that they had, but they have not.

Will you acknowledge that the NIST final report on the collapse of WTC 7 does not explain the collapse?

What is your reply to this possible variation on the NIST Report which has been offered as a possible explanation of how a collapse could begin on Floor 12 after the fires had gone out and the temperatures had begun to drop again?

That's just speculation and does not change what NIST said started the collapse that led to the total destruction of WTC 7.

"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79."

 

[Major_Tom]

Their stated purpose is to explain the how and why of the collapses. It is written near the beginning of most every report.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Their stated purpose is to explain the how and why of the collapses. It is written near the beginning of most every report.

The question "why" is an interesting one. Even if you can prove controlled demolition (which would be difficult considered the complete lack of evidence), you are still left with the problem that there was no plausible reason to go to great expense and trouble to secretly destroy a building that was so heavily damaged that it would have been necessary to demolish it anyway.

 

[Senenmut]

You are quoting something you don't understand and are therefore misinterpreting it- you don't realise that. I shall tell you what they are saying because you don't know.

They are comparing the diffusion of sulphur into the grains as opposed to the grain boundaries. The temperature is the same whether diffusion is taking place along grain boundaries or in grains.

They are talking about the products of this process that are observed on cooling, not observing solid state diffusion occurring on cooling. (although SSD will be ongoing anyway)

i understand that.

This diffusion at the high temperature is known about because we can see, at a lower temperature, (i.e. room temperature) the presence of oxidized sulfides which are found in a gradient.

from the paper:
"Sulfidation in the solid state into the austenite grains occurs much slower and is observed on cooling as a gradient of precipitated sulfides and oxides or oxidized sulfides with many of these particles containing silicon."
or oxidized sulfides....yeah. got it.

The word gradient is of utmost importance because solid state diffusion requires a concentration gradient. We expect to see a higher concentration of a diffusing species at the surface of the parent material and that concentration will reduce the further from the surface inside the parent material ( a gradient) if SSD is the mechanism. The model predicts this. We see the gradient hence diffusion is the mechanism. QED.

You think for some reason that you are proving me wrong by quoting that sentence. Unfortunately all you've done is show you have no clue because the sentence doesn't say what you think it does. Hilarious.

i wasnt trying to prove ya wrong. it just stated that upon cooling is when solid stated diffusion takes place. thats all...

You joined JREF in Nov 2008 - you've had plenty of time to study for a relevant degree. How is your metallurgy degree coming along? Must be finals time about now. What? 3 years and you've acquired zero knowledge on the subject. lol.

your my mentor

back to thermate.
it would produce FeS. that is what sisson used in his experiment and that produced similar results to wtc 7 steel. any comments.

 

[Oystein]

...
back to thermate.
it would produce FeS. that is what sisson used in his experiment and that produced similar results to wtc 7 steel. any comments.

Citation? Reasons?

 

[Sunstealer]

i wasnt trying to prove ya wrong. it just stated that upon cooling is when solid stated diffusion takes place. thats all...

Solid state diffusion is occurring at all temperatures irrespective of whether the steel is heating up or cooling down. The rate depends on many factors.

back to thermate.
it would produce FeS. that is what sisson used in his experiment and that produced similar results to wtc 7 steel. any comments.

Well you'll have to show that thermate produces FeS- have you a source? Thermate typically contains 2% S and 29% barium nitrate. I would suspect that SO2 would be preferentially produced rather than FeS. Sulphur is added to reduce the ignition temperature so I'd expect it to form SO2 which is driven off during the main reaction as part of the smoke.

 

[alienentity]

"I am aware that there are person

I know he is sincere... He doesn't seem insane. He's very likable.

I'd like to comment on a couple of things.

You don't know whether he is sincere or not. You believe he is.
I don't know him personally but I've listened to his debates and seen his presentations. I believe he's either a con man or a terrible fool. The term 'insane' doesn't really make sense applied to his behavior.

Either way it really doesn't make a lot of difference - he's selling a very false, pseudo-scientific and revisionist product, which is harmful to people.

Being likable is not relevant to the question of the veracity or sincerity of his words and actions. Ted Bundy was likable, and was not insane either. But nobody would argue that this somehow excuses his evil behavior.

I'm not comparing the evil of Bundy to the misdeeds of Gage, obviously. Mind you, Gage is essentially excusing the real murderers and vaguely accusing many innocent people (whom he cannot name of course) of mass murder.

In my view that does not make him a nice person at all. Charming? Pleasant? Sure.....

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #17

Gage: "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink."

Copper is 8 times more conductive of heat than steel. Does anyone know approximately how long it would take to disperse heat applied to steel to all 110 acres of steel trusses and all 1300' of steel columns? How fast does steel actually conduct heat away from the a fire?

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #18

Gage: "Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8" bolts."

How strong are 5/8" bolts? I don't doubt that the Twin Towers were well constructed; they stood up for a good amount of time after the huge plane crashes and fires... but Gage seemed to be talking about these bolts as if they were part of an impenetrable fortress. Seems to me that 5/8" bolts would be weakened when heated and stressed from all the sagging and inward bowing etc.

 

[beachnut]

Gage: "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink."

...?

Gage is a moron, this statement proves it. He is a scumbag pushing this nonsense.

Conducted that heat and bent the beam. Have Gage replace his copper and Al heat-sinks on his computer with steel, that will keep him off-line.

 

[R.Mackey]

Gage: "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink."

Copper is 8 times more conductive of heat than steel. Does anyone know approximately how long it would take to disperse heat applied to steel to all 110 acres of steel trusses and all 1300' of steel columns? How fast does steel actually conduct heat away from the a fire?

You have to solve the diffusion equation. There is no fixed time, it's a function of what the temperature distribution is, the distance, the cross-section of the members, convection and insulation, etc.

... but it's pretty freaking long.

Consider a blacksmith heating a thin metal rod, endeavoring to fashion a pole with which to poke Truthers from a safe distance. If the rod is at all slender, it is no trouble at all to heat one end of it to a working temperature -- literally, glowing orange -- while the other end is cool enough to hold with no more than working gloves.

The WTC columns would be considerably more slender than this situation, and are scaled up to literally hundreds of feet.

If we remove our blacksmith's rod from the fire, it doesn't "instantly" reach an equilibrium temperature. It will take tens of minutes or so to all equilibrate.

The situation in the WTC will take much, much longer than that. All we care about though is that it is longer than the duration of the fires prior to collapse, which they were.

To put harder numbers on this you should run a simulation. NIST provides some simple examples in NCSTAR1-5B, where they show heat applied to representative individual columns, with and without fireproofing. The time to permeate these pieces -- NOT spreading out hundreds of feet, NOT conducting from one beam to another -- is several minutes to heat through. This should give you some feel for it.

Gage, as usual, is a complete lunatic.

 

[R.Mackey]

Gage: "Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8" bolts."

How strong are 5/8" bolts? I don't doubt that the Twin Towers were well constructed; they stood up for a good amount of time after the huge plane crashes and fires... but Gage seemed to be talking about these bolts as if they were part of an impenetrable fortress. Seems to me that 5/8" bolts would be weakened when heated and stressed from all the sagging and inward bowing etc.

Take a look at NIST NCSTAR1-6D, section 2.5.2. These connections were fairly strong -- unfortunately. This contributed to the collapse and indeed was principally responsible for the inward bowing in the first place.

They were weakened by heat, naturally, going from c. 36,000 pounds at working temperature to about 8,000 pounds when heated to 800^oC. (Figures are from memory; NIST's site isn't loading for me at the moment.) But either figure is enough to produce the bowing effect, through the miracle of eccentric loading.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To put harder numbers on this you should run a simulation. NIST provides some simple examples in NCSTAR1-5B, where they show heat applied to representative individual columns, with and without fireproofing. The time to permeate these pieces -- NOT spreading out hundreds of feet, NOT conducting from one beam to another -- is several minutes to heat through. This should give you some feel for it.

This is, actually, the clincher. Gage's analysis of heat transfer comprises a sweeping statement based, apparently, on no data, analysis or expertise whatsoever. NIST's analysis of precisely the same scenario comprises extensive thermal modelling using known material properties, known structural dimensions, and proven numerical modelling software. Gage is demanding that his wild guess should be given more credence than NIST's thorough and professional analysis.

Dave