Gage's next debate

[Christopher7]

Hi Funk,

Thanks for saying this to C7: "NIST show evidence of fires later than that in the final report. Stop being dishonest and repeating the earlier report. Huge, unfought fires brought the bulding down as it does to many steel framed buildings."

Chris7, you know I am no scientist and never pretend to be. And I have a very low trust of claims made by the 911 Truth movement people. Why? I feel like you and others of your persuasion are trying to rope me in with false claims I am not sophisticated enough to catch. I was willing to agree that it's possible there was molten steel in the debris, but a more likely hypothesis is that there wasn't any (or very little).

Recently you have been harping on me to get me to disagree with the NIST Report re floor 12. I didn't catch what Funk caught, that apparently you are quoting the draft report when the final report of NIST is very different. If he's right, then you're being dishonest. Stop it. Please. You can fool me for awhile but the scientists in our little club are quick to pick up on such shenanigans. If you are not being dishonest, then at best you appear to be in over your head when it comes to some of these scientific questions. Gawd, even I caught the nitrogen-in-air flub a couple weeks ago. I know when I'm in over my head and ask ask ask. You make false assertions and people call you names. What gives?

Funk likes to call people "dishonest" or a "liar" but he is talking thru his hat. This is not a false assertion, it is a statement made by NIST.

There is nothing "dishonest" about quoting from the NIST appendix L report. It is a document published by NIST and it states that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

In the final report NIST tries to obfuscate this fact by not mentioning that photograph but the FACT remains that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

They include a photo showing the fire on floor 12 at the west end that they say was taken around 5:00 p.m. but the qualifier [that funk knows about] is that the time was estimated using shadows with a time uncertainty of at least 10 minutes [pg 237] so it was taken before the one mentioned in the appendix L report. Now that is dishonest.

Your distrust is born of your inability to accept any evidence that disproves the OCT.

It is a FACT that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on the 12th floor had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

This is not rocket science. All that is required it the ability to read.

Furthermore, the series of photographs in the final report bear this out. They clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

 

[aggle-rithm]

It is a FACT that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on the 12th floor had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

There is a photo of the entire 12th floor? How did they get it?

 

[Christopher7]

There is a photo of the entire 12th floor? How did they get it?

Ask them.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/index.cfm

Probably a photo taken from a helicopter like this one only from an angle that shows the whole floor:

or a photo taken from this position with the camera turned a little to the right:

However, the series of photographs in the final report clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

ETA: Here's one that shows the entire 12th floor and the area of the collapse burning at about 3:10 p.m. Fires burned 20 -30 minutes in any location.

 

[Animal]

Animal,

This is one of the way-coolest videos I've seen for this debate. It's always important to find examples that occasionally are just plain funny while still making a good point. With this one you hit it out of the ballpark, and it's absolutely going to be in the final debate product!

What makes it so great is the knowledge has been around for at least 150 years and troofers still can't grasp it.


Note that the rail had bent from its own weight, and the men were not wearing any insulating material to protect them from the heat.

 

[funk de fino]

Funk likes to call people "dishonest" or a "liar" but he is talking thru his hat. This is not a false assertion, it is a statement made by NIST.

There is nothing "dishonest" about quoting from the NIST appendix L report. It is a document published by NIST and it states that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

In the final report NIST tries to obfuscate this fact by not mentioning that photograph but the FACT remains that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

They include a photo showing the fire on floor 12 at the west end that they say was taken around 5:00 p.m. but the qualifier [that funk knows about] is that the time was estimated using shadows with a time uncertainty of at least 10 minutes [pg 237] so it was taken before the one mentioned in the appendix L report. Now that is dishonest. Your distrust is born of your inability to accept any evidence that disproves the OCT.

It is a FACT that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on the 12th floor had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

This is not rocket science. All that is required it the ability to read.

Furthermore, the series of photographs in the final report bear this out. They clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

I suggest you read the bolded part again and try and work that one out. The final report suprecedes the early draft. Get over it and use the correct documents or continue to look dishonest.

 

[funk de fino]

Ask them.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/index.cfm

Probably a photo taken from a helicopter like this one only from an angle that shows the whole floor:

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img823/6484/2575copy.png[/qimg]

or a photo taken from this position with the camera turned a little to the right:

[qimg]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2999/figure5134.jpg[/qimg]

However, the series of photographs in the final report clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

ETA: Here's one that shows the entire 12th floor and the area of the collapse burning at about 3:10 p.m. Fires burned 20 -30 minutes in any location.

[qimg]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9915/figure5123.jpg[/qimg]

Yet again the point whooshes over your head C7. What about the parts you cannot see on that floor? The fire did not just burn in the externally visible areas near the windows. The final report shows that.

 

[Kent1]

Chrismohr, your best bet is to read the final WTC 7 NIST report

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf

Also I would suggest Pitts Chapter 1:
WTC 7 VISUAL EVIDENCE, DAMAGE ESTIMATES, AND TIMELINE ANALYSIS

 

[dafydd]

Funk likes to call people "dishonest" or a "liar" but he is talking thru his hat. This is not a false assertion, it is a statement made by NIST.

There is nothing "dishonest" about quoting from the NIST appendix L report. It is a document published by NIST and it states that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

In the final report NIST tries to obfuscate this fact by not mentioning that photograph but the FACT remains that they have a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

They include a photo showing the fire on floor 12 at the west end that they say was taken around 5:00 p.m. but the qualifier [that funk knows about] is that the time was estimated using shadows with a time uncertainty of at least 10 minutes [pg 237] so it was taken before the one mentioned in the appendix L report. Now that is dishonest.

Your distrust is born of your inability to accept any evidence that disproves the OCT.

It is a FACT that NIST has a photo showing that the fire on the 12th floor had burned out by about 4:45 p.m.

This is not rocket science. All that is required it the ability to read.

Furthermore, the series of photographs in the final report bear this out. They clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJvhJfSSnUQ

 

[Animal]

Yet again the point whooshes over your head C7. What about the parts you cannot see on that floor? The fire did not just burn in the externally visible areas near the windows. The final report shows that.

Besides the fact he ignores issues like structural creep. Just because the fire could have been out does not mean the structure returns to its former load carrying capabilities.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ask them.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/index.cfm

Probably a photo taken from a helicopter like this one only from an angle that shows the whole floor:

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img823/6484/2575copy.png[/qimg]

or a photo taken from this position with the camera turned a little to the right:

[qimg]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2999/figure5134.jpg[/qimg]

However, the series of photographs in the final report clearly show that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

ETA: Here's one that shows the entire 12th floor and the area of the collapse burning at about 3:10 p.m. Fires burned 20 -30 minutes in any location.

[qimg]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9915/figure5123.jpg[/qimg]

There is no photo, nor can there be one, that proves there was no fire on the 12th floor after 4:00 PM.

It would be simple to prove me wrong. Post the photo.

 

[dafydd]

Besides the fact he ignores issues like structural creep. Just because the fire could have been out does not mean the structure returns to its former load carrying capabilities.

Perhaps structural creep does not occur when you nail bits of wood together.

 

[Christopher7]

Yet again the point whooshes over your head C7. What about the parts you cannot see on that floor? The fire did not just burn in the externally visible areas near the windows. The final report shows that.

Carpenters [and NIST] have these magical pieces of paper called "floor plans", but this approach requires the ability to think and that is why you are having a problem. It's all laid out at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

To get from the east side where the fire was burning at 2:30 p.m., to the north side where it first appeared at ~3:00 p.m.
“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.” [NCSTAR 1A pg 20]

Internally means the offices around columns 79 and under the beams that supposedly “thermally expanded” enough to push a girder off its seat and initiate the “global collapse” at 5:20 p.m.

Dafydd, Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA1KsuQikHk&NR=1

 

[Christopher7]

Besides the fact he ignores issues like structural creep. Just because the fire could have been out does not mean the structure returns to its former load carrying capabilities.

We have covered this. The NIST hypothesis is that thermal expansion, not structural creep due to thermal contraction, started the collapse. They say the collapse of floor 13 occurred when the beams expanded.

 

[funk de fino]

Carpenters have these magical pieces of paper called "floor plans", but this approach requires the ability to think and that is why you are having a problem. It's all laid out at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

To get from the east side where the fire was burning at 2:30 p.m., to the north side where it first appeared at ~3:00 p.m.
“By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face.” [NCSTAR 1A pg 20]

Internally means the offices around columns 79 and under the beams that supposedly “thermally expanded” enough to push a girder off its seat and initiate the “global collapse” at 5:20 p.m.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img22/5810/fireoverlay4.jpg[/qimg]

Dafdd, Thanks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA1KsuQikHk&NR=1

Link the stuff from the Final report. Not your junk science website or the draft report. You cannot see what is happening away from the windows. What did the simulation show?

Tell me mate what does plus or minus 10 minutes give you?

 

[Christopher7]

Link the stuff from the Final report. Not your junk science website or the draft report. You cannot see what is happening away from the windows. What did the simulation show?

The links to the NIST final report are at the bottom if my analysis at Truth Phalanx.
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

It is not necessary to see what is happening to know that the area under the beams in question was on fire before 3:00 p.m. as I explained in the post you just responded to.

The NIST simulation does NOT match the photographs on pages 201 -241 of the final report, or the narrative of the fire progression on floor 12 on page 245.

 

[JamesB]

Gage is going to be on the radio tomorrow night with Barry Zwicker and Paul Zarembka facing off against journalist Jonathan Kay (who is promoting his new book coming out Tuesday). Seems a bit unfair, three against one.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=109161&ts=2011-05-13 20:00:00.0

 

[chrismohr]

Here's a Gage quote from his video: "The available gravitational potential in the whole building is about 110,000 kilowatt hours. That's the weight of the building times its height above the ground. But the expansion of that cloud has been calculated to require ten times that energy in heat, which produces the expansion. The energy [for the collapse plus pulverization and ejection] doesn't add up."

Huh? Did he get this from Gordon Ross? I have never once heard a physicist or engineer give me the formula of weight x height = kilowatt hours. I get simplified formulas like force = mass x acceleration, which quickly creates overwhelming force. Gage also quotes a static load of five times, when everyone but Gage and Ross says the static load design was 3x the weight... and of course, static loads can't compete against f = ma once things stop being static and start coming down at 100 mph.

How do I even come up with a question here? How do I even rebut this? I guess I can start by showing the height x weight = kilowatt hours formula and saying this makes no sense?

 

[Animal]

We have covered this. The NIST hypothesis is that thermal expansion, not structural creep due to thermal contraction, started the collapse. They say the collapse of floor 13 occurred when the beams expanded.

Started...not finished.....your fixation on minutia is typical of troofers looking to fit a round peg in a square hole. The girder was pushed off its seat.....it does not equate to instant failure of the column.

Your insistence on the NIST report being accurate to the Nth degree is also laughable, but then that is all troofers have left.

 

[triforcharity]

Here's a Gage quote from his video: "The available gravitational potential in the whole building is about 110,000 kilowatt hours. That's the weight of the building times its height above the ground. But the expansion of that cloud has been calculated to require ten times that energy in heat, which produces the expansion. The energy [for the collapse plus pulverization and ejection] doesn't add up."

Huh? Did he get this from Gordon Ross? I have never once heard a physicist or engineer give me the formula of weight x height = kilowatt hours. I get simplified formulas like force = mass x acceleration, which quickly creates overwhelming force. Gage also quotes a static load of five times, when everyone but Gage and Ross says the static load design was 3x the weight... and of course, static loads can't compete against f = ma once things stop being static and start coming down at 100 mph.

How do I even come up with a question here? How do I even rebut this? I guess I can start by showing the height x weight = kilowatt hours formula and saying this makes no sense?

This would be an excellent question for Dave Thomas, and also Dave Rogers.

 

[AZCat]

Here's a Gage quote from his video: "The available gravitational potential in the whole building is about 110,000 kilowatt hours. That's the weight of the building times its height above the ground. But the expansion of that cloud has been calculated to require ten times that energy in heat, which produces the expansion. The energy [for the collapse plus pulverization and ejection] doesn't add up."

Huh? Did he get this from Gordon Ross? I have never once heard a physicist or engineer give me the formula of weight x height = kilowatt hours. I get simplified formulas like force = mass x acceleration, which quickly creates overwhelming force. Gage also quotes a static load of five times, when everyone but Gage and Ross says the static load design was 3x the weight... and of course, static loads can't compete against f = ma once things stop being static and start coming down at 100 mph.

How do I even come up with a question here? How do I even rebut this? I guess I can start by showing the height x weight = kilowatt hours formula and saying this makes no sense?

If you do it in international units, the potential energy (in joules) equals height of the center of mass (in meters) x mass (in kilograms) x gravitational acceleration (in meters per second squared). 3.6 million joules equals one kilowatt hour, so you can convert one into the other.

The calculation used as the basis for the expansion of the cloud has been discussed before, but I don't remember where Ross screwed up (it's been a long time).