chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Not sure yet. Good idea, I may do this too. All the references may be too much work but with help such a thing may be possible.
Chris
Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
Chris
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Well, I imagine you have lots of those references already saved somewhere in your private repository, in preparation for the video production?
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
I absolutely agree. While videos are helpful at times, written papers are even better.
Or, as you said, a transcript of the video, with links and such. A viewers guide.
If you have a 1 hour video, most people won't watch it, as it is alot of time to commit. Maybe make one long one, and one readers digest version?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
This is a lie as has been proven by the diesel fuelled fires hypothesis many have changed their views on. Retract your falsehood
No, No. You have claimed Mike is a liar have you not? What evidence did you use to come to that conclusion?
You can only see the fire at the windows. There were others.
You call not responding to a sarcastic question "dishonest and cowardly". Get serious.
Kindly take your accusations of dishonesty and cowardice, and return them to that dark recess from whence they came.
You seem to be avoidoing what plus or minus means. Times would be 4.50 to 5.10 pm eh? Why avoid the plus?
NoahFence
Banned
Are they too busy with the "1,500th member" party?
Figures.
NoahFence
Banned
Why would we abandon a hypotheis that's correct? We still think the world is flat, you know.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Well, the "pancake theory" for collapse initiation and the "diesel fueled" fires were dropped (to name a couple). You might want to think before you make such statements.
And Cicorp/TMP has modified his with the Saudi prisoners several times in the past week.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
White Paper?
Hi all,
I will definitely put out the text of what I will say as well as my Richard Gage video, but video/audio is my strength. It'll be a long-ish video, but also broken up into small segments by subject. Pictures, videos and drawings have enormous impact, as Richard Gage has discovered. And it's my strength.
Ryan Mackey's White Paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" is the gold standard of written 911 CD rebuttals. Like I said, I'll put out something in that format, but my focus will be on what I do best, which is to use my voice and my images to make as compelling a case as possible.
Hi all,
I will definitely put out the text of what I will say as well as my Richard Gage video, but video/audio is my strength. It'll be a long-ish video, but also broken up into small segments by subject. Pictures, videos and drawings have enormous impact, as Richard Gage has discovered. And it's my strength.
Ryan Mackey's White Paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" is the gold standard of written 911 CD rebuttals. Like I said, I'll put out something in that format, but my focus will be on what I do best, which is to use my voice and my images to make as compelling a case as possible.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Part One of My Video Text
Hi all,
This is a rough draft of the text of Part One of my upcoming video. Much more to come. No visual elements in this text, but you can at least see where slides and video will be added. When it says FACE that's when the camera goes back on my face. Otherwise, much of it is the pix and videos. I have a general introduction but here's where the science begins. Any comments?
BACK TO MY FACE:
Here’s an accusation that I’m afraid applies to all of us. MIT Prof Thomas Eagar was complaining about 9/11 truth movement and remarked,
"These people use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
It’s a human tendency we all share. Richard Gage also talks about scientific method, repeatable experiments, changing hypotheses. And he attacks NIST for admitting they never looked for explosives. “How can you find what you are not looking for?” I brought that question to Michael Newman at NIST and he replied, “We followed the evidence.” I asked, if you had found detonator materials or other physical evidence of controlled demolition, would you have looked for evidence of controlled demolition? “Of course!” he said. He also did not look for mini-nukes, post Star-Wars energy rays, aliens, missiles, holograms or other alleged sources of the World Trade Center collapses. To Richard Gage, this is reverse scientific method. To NIST it was following evidence and not finding any evidence of controlled demolition in the debris. There is an easy solution to this standoff, but it is not being done by the 911 Truth activists. I will discuss when we talk about the thermitic materials allegedly in the dust.
I tried hard to look at both sides and I’ve sometimes wondered if Richard Gage is right. I’ve read dozens of expert explanations, then watched several 9/11 videos, dug up original complete eyewitness interviews, joined an online science Q&A club, read 1000 pages of the NIST report and asked some really tough questions directly of NIST, chemist Kevin Ryan and former controlled demolition employee Tom Sullivan. I’ve asked over a dozen technically trained people to try to answer these questions. One of these is a certified structural engineer from New York who believes in 911 government complicity not controlled demolition. I’ve also talked with experts who have studied 911, including scientists of all kinds, metallurgists, an NY 911 fire engine chief, other structural engineers, chemists, controlled demolition experts, a dust analyst, architects, and a range of other people with expertise and direct 911 experience. I’ve joined several physics and 911 chat rooms. Outside of the 911 Truth movement, I have yet to meet a single scientifically trained person who believes in controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Buildings or any of the major scientific assertions that are used to support such a theory.
Here is an explanation of how the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on that terrible day. BACK TO SLIDES: 8 Text
For starters, Why a building is being created tells us a lot about its structure.
9 (PYRAMID SLIDE). Egyptian Pharoahs wanted immortal home, architects said OK boss. Several thousand years later the pyramids still stand.
10. (Picture of standing buildings). Capitalists are motivated to minimize expense and maximize profit. Fulfill the building code; make Renters feel safe.
But, boss wants office space to rent. 11. (Map of WTC buildings)
So the young, innovative engineers and architects designed skyscrapers with Hundreds of slender, hollow steel support columns around the outside and a strong steel core but without the usual heavy concrete support. Instead, they sprayed on fireproofing for the steel supports to lighten the structure. They built in structural redundancies to hold three times the buildings’ static weight... not five times as Richard Gage asserts... with hat-shaped trusses in the top of the building to shift loads to other columns at almost the speed of sound in the event of a structural crisis. By the way we’ll see that falling loads quickly exceed even 5 times the structural capacity of any building. The towers would be very resilient and able to withstand major hurricanes and even jet plane crashes as long as there was no burning fuel. As Time Magazine reported in the early 70s, the next generation of skyscrapers could rise higher than ever because of their brilliant lightweight structure. Young architects like Leslie Robertson seemed to defy gravity, soaring to new building heights while creating exciting open-air designs with 72 foot long trusses, longer than ever before used. As Richard Gage points out in his video, “the 208' x 208' open floor plan and the long spans departs from the high rise tradition of a dense grid of steel.” Richard Gage also pointed out that “Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8 inch bolts.” Frank de Martini, quoted in Blueprint for Truth, compared the perimeter structure to the screen on a door which easily survives being punctured. Tragically, he died on 9/11 and is unable to offer us his hindsight perspective now that the buildings have collapsed.
The simple square building design meant that many of the steel columns, trusses and facades were prefabricated and standardized. The buildings were 95% air by volume, 220 acres of floor space in two towers, one full acre per floor, mostly rentable space. They made them beautiful in a modern way....Alcoa aluminum still boasts about “ T, a shiny lightweight aluminum alloy” that was the outside facade of the towers and helped attract renters.
12 Slide of defective fireproofing In 1993 there was a terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. After the 1993 bombing, inspectors found fireproofing to be deficient. By 911, replacement was completed on only 18 floors in 1 WTC, and on 13 floors in 2 WTC. The deficient fireproofing probably didn’t matter, as much of it in the crash zone was stripped of by the planes anyway.
13 Truss Seat SLIDE. The long trusses were designed to maximize open space and were up to 72 feet long. They sat on these truss seats and were fastened by 5/8 inch bolts.
So here’s a collapse scenario:
Number 1: On 9/11, Eduardo Kausel, at MIT writes:
14 (SLIDE of plane on its way) “The North Tower was hit at 8:46 above the 96th floor by a Boeing 767 flying at (429 mph)... The South Tower was hit at 9:03 above the 80th floor by another 767 flying at (503 mph).” ..notice size of the plane relative to the one-acre building... it’s a huge jet, covering 60% of the width of the building, it weighs 282,000 pounds, and it’s going over 500 mph!
15 SLIDE of crash/explosion Forensic analyst Jonathan Barnett, who was quoted in Blueprint for Truth but doesn’t believe in controlled demolition, said the planes hit the towers at 30 and 45 degrees respectively, causing damage to the maximum possible floors, stripping the painted-on fire insulation and cutting off the water sprinkler pipes. NIST says 43 of 47 core columns were stripped of insulation plus 60,000 sq feet of floor. The plane hitting the south tower impacted with 50% more energy because of its higher speed, and went in almost horizontally, so more of the aircraft passed straight through the offices, hitting the core directly, without slamming through as many concrete floors.
16 Slide Picture 30 seconds later immediate mechanical damage: F. R. Greening says the vertical collapse safety factor was reduced from 3 to 2 when 60% of the columns on the damaged side were destroyed. The compression wave from the impact visibly damaged the structural integrity of four floors below the crash. Shifting the load to the surviving beams created an “eccentric load,” so the pressures on the remaining structures were vertical (as always) and lateral. Compression waves from the collisions torqued the building. Escapees reported wall cracks and doors jammed shut well below the crash site, evidence of structural weakening. NIST reports that people were knocked down and furniture flew around many floors below the crash.
This is the mechanical damage.
17 Number 4: With the fires, the real destruction begins. According to NIST, some of the jet fuel exploded immediately, and fires spread to all four faces within 15 minutes. Soon smoke is pouring out of the vent from the 109th floor. Suicide leaps occur by the hundreds as the smoke chokes people on the even the top floors. Over 1000 windows break out as the fire spreads, providing over 12,000 sq feet of fire ventilation.
18 (SLIDE Purdue computer simulation of crash inside) Eduardo Kausel said: “The ensuing fireball set the buildings ablaze in a virtually uncontrollable, fierce fire... The intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some (750°F), which caused the steel to lose both its stiffness and resistance.” Leslie Robertson is a designer of the World Trade Center and was quoted in Blueprint for Truth about the fires. As I mentioned, he dismisses the controlled demolition theory. He said, “With the 707 the fuel load was not considered in the design. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that... Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” So the buildings were originally designed to withstand the physical impact of a plane crash, but their model did not include the destructive power of the burning jet fuel!
Purdue University spent thousands of hours feeding in precise technical specifications to create this 2009 computer simulation of the first second of what the mechanical damage and exploding fire would have looked like in the building: It shows the plane’s destructive power and confirms the major findings of the NIST Report.
19. SLIDE OF MORE REASONS WHEN READY: 90,850 litres of viscous dense “blue gunk” burning jet fuel created massive conflagrations. NIST says some of that fuel sprayed on some of the furniture and the tens of thousands of filing cabinets and cubicles, and much of the rest coursed down the elevator shafts, heating and softening the vertical core beams, blowing out doors and walls all the way to the basement, exploding on the 77th and 22nd floors of the North Tower, and on the west side lobby, and triggering a fatal fireball on the concourse. The energy of the explosions radiated with equal ferocity forward, backward, left, right, up, down, diagonally, and most of this explosive energy was absorbed by the building itself. What we see outside is actually only one direction of the explosive energy.
NIST Tower Collapse Sequence: NIST says These fires led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
20. Number 5. (Steel Slide) is this consistent with the properties of steel? It melts at around 27500. Office fires can exceed 15000 F, but Colin Bailey says temperatures increase over time, and can get as high as 20120. Jet fuel burns at 800-15000. At 11000-1200o, steel loses 50% of its integrity. The thermal limit of structural steel is 750o. Dr. Allen Firmage asserts that steel girders are bent at 800-10000 , to create curved frames for bridges. steeluniversity.org explains that steel begins to lose its resistance to distortion at 5720. At azom.com, they say steel expands in length at temperatures as low as 3000.
NIST says pockets of the WTC fires reached 18000. Thomas Eager asserts that with limited oxygen, the fire temperature topped out at around 1400o. Corus Construction Co’s website says that steel is usually only 100-200 degrees cooler than the surrounding air.
22 (Huge fire slide)
Steel was up to over 1900 degrees in local “hot spots” especially in the far end of the South Tower where the jet pushed tons of debris into a pile. Other places never got over 500 degrees. According to Thomas Eagar who is quoted in Blueprint for Truth but opposes the Controlled Demolition theory, localized hot temperatures weakened some steel, and the temperature differential is also helped destroy the structural integrity of the beams.
“No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in seconds.... Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread... across... the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire.” NIST says that At 9:37 a.m., a 105th floor occupant reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed.
Number 6: (NIST picture with lattice) By 10:23 am in WTC I, the sagging of the steel girders caused walls to bow inward 55 inches.. Above the impact zone, the entire building tilted south. Here are two pictures, taken about 50 minutes apart. (See sag picture) This has been called a utility cable; NIST calls it a sagging floor. (See video of beams sagging and snapping) In this simulation the long support beams functioned as one unit across large areas. They gradually sagged downward enough to help cause the inward bowing of the outer columns; varying degrees of fire damage on all four sides of the building caused irregular stresses everywhere. Somehow the 5/8 inch bolts held fast as the building bowed inward, in spite of the fact that many were weakened by heat. NIST says they went from being able to hold 36,000 pounds each down to about 8,000 pounds when heated to 1400 degrees.
SLIDE: BOWING ONE MINUTE BEFORE COLLAPSE. By the time collapse was imminent, bowing was extreme.
SLIDE: MORE REASONS FOR NATURAL COLLAPSE
911 a SLIDE: PICTURE OF ANTENNA and smoke:
Near the end, smoke was billowing through the top of the building as the fire and smoke spread upwards. Richard Gage said “the fires were diminishing severely,” but in fact they had grown from three floors to at least fourteen floors in less than an hour. At the critical moment of failure, three outside walls were nearing capacity but still providing support. The core, on the other hand, had compressed due to broken columns and creeping behavior, and the hat truss that connected the perimeter walls to the core was partially suspending the core.
The weak south wall buckled first and was momentarily supported by the hat truss, which buckled in the center first, causing the “antenna drop” seen by FEMA and others. As the building began its collapse, air pressure pushed smoke upwards and out the sides. Richard called this “evidence of explosions on top of Building 1,” but if there had been 4500 degree thermites at the very top of the building, then no one could have walked on the debris pile.
In addition, in a classic controlled demolitions, no smoke comes out the top...
- We know from 911 calls that people in the upper floors were severely suffering from smoke inhalation. Is that also only explicable with explosives, or would that not rather more likely indicate that hot smoke can rise through a structure?
Look at the movement of the smoke in absolute terms, rather than relative to the falling towers, and note that the smoke and dust left behind by the collapses had no significant upward velocity component.
Or as one scientist put it, “he actually said "smoke rises" and used it as proof of a CD?” ...I wonder if Richard is trying to say they took the towers down using demolition charges on the roof. - I also don’t understand why smoke ejection at the top is indicative of explosions?”
The building that had twice as much weight above the crash site collapsed twice as quickly, not surprising in a natural collapse scenario.
NIST said that At 10:20 a.m., the police aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the WTC I North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., they reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m..
Number 9: WTC II South Tower
There were a few differences. The South Tower was hit at 9:03 am, causing building to sway 27 inches back and forth. The off center impact twisted the upper part counterclockwise. 911 calls reported falling ceiling tiles, collapsed walls, jet fuel smells.
The top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story.
Richard reported that firefighters witnessed sounds and flashes of explosions, orange and red flashes all around the building,” which is true. BELLOWS SLIDE At the onset of both collapses, ½ million cubic feet of air per floor was being pushed down onto the fires, creating a monumental “bellows effect,” literally stoking the fires and quickly creating a massive “ring of fire” around the perimeter of the collapse zone. That is a much more plausible explanation for the fire’s sudden growth. If it were from controlled demolition, similar rings of fire would have been visible on dozens of other floors during the collapse, and they were not.
SLIDE OF THIS: .NIST says “no building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11.”
SLIDE SOUTH 13 story FACADE Number 11: NIST predicted many breaks in the support columns every one to three stories especially at the weaker welded connections, but many randomly damaged steel supports were much smaller, and others much bigger, like this 13-story high facade, which would have been pulverized by a controlled demolition.
There has not been a single published, peer-reviewed paper disputing the fundamentals of this collapse theory – not from any person in any department, in any field, in any country in the world. On the other hand, there have been several published results in general support of this collapse hypothesis. This is part of the reason why NIST did not consider the entire duration of the collapses. Early results from engineers and scientists indicated that, once the upper stories began to fall, the complete collapse of the structure was not in doubt, and there was no credible result to the contrary. There still are none.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued their technical findings on the collapses of these buildings to determine causes and make recommendations for new Building and Fire Code standards. The National Fire Protection Association and the International Code Council both took NIST’s recommendations and redesigned their templates for building and fire codes, and unlike Richard Gage I believe those revisions will save lives. The likely natural collapse scenario you have just heard is compiled from my research with NIST as well as a host of other scientific sources. In the next section of Blueprint for Truth Reconsidered, we will examine some of Richard Gage’s objections to this Natural Collapse theory.
Hi all,
This is a rough draft of the text of Part One of my upcoming video. Much more to come. No visual elements in this text, but you can at least see where slides and video will be added. When it says FACE that's when the camera goes back on my face. Otherwise, much of it is the pix and videos. I have a general introduction but here's where the science begins. Any comments?
BACK TO MY FACE:
Here’s an accusation that I’m afraid applies to all of us. MIT Prof Thomas Eagar was complaining about 9/11 truth movement and remarked,
"These people use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
It’s a human tendency we all share. Richard Gage also talks about scientific method, repeatable experiments, changing hypotheses. And he attacks NIST for admitting they never looked for explosives. “How can you find what you are not looking for?” I brought that question to Michael Newman at NIST and he replied, “We followed the evidence.” I asked, if you had found detonator materials or other physical evidence of controlled demolition, would you have looked for evidence of controlled demolition? “Of course!” he said. He also did not look for mini-nukes, post Star-Wars energy rays, aliens, missiles, holograms or other alleged sources of the World Trade Center collapses. To Richard Gage, this is reverse scientific method. To NIST it was following evidence and not finding any evidence of controlled demolition in the debris. There is an easy solution to this standoff, but it is not being done by the 911 Truth activists. I will discuss when we talk about the thermitic materials allegedly in the dust.
I tried hard to look at both sides and I’ve sometimes wondered if Richard Gage is right. I’ve read dozens of expert explanations, then watched several 9/11 videos, dug up original complete eyewitness interviews, joined an online science Q&A club, read 1000 pages of the NIST report and asked some really tough questions directly of NIST, chemist Kevin Ryan and former controlled demolition employee Tom Sullivan. I’ve asked over a dozen technically trained people to try to answer these questions. One of these is a certified structural engineer from New York who believes in 911 government complicity not controlled demolition. I’ve also talked with experts who have studied 911, including scientists of all kinds, metallurgists, an NY 911 fire engine chief, other structural engineers, chemists, controlled demolition experts, a dust analyst, architects, and a range of other people with expertise and direct 911 experience. I’ve joined several physics and 911 chat rooms. Outside of the 911 Truth movement, I have yet to meet a single scientifically trained person who believes in controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Buildings or any of the major scientific assertions that are used to support such a theory.
Here is an explanation of how the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on that terrible day. BACK TO SLIDES: 8 Text
For starters, Why a building is being created tells us a lot about its structure.
9 (PYRAMID SLIDE). Egyptian Pharoahs wanted immortal home, architects said OK boss. Several thousand years later the pyramids still stand.
10. (Picture of standing buildings). Capitalists are motivated to minimize expense and maximize profit. Fulfill the building code; make Renters feel safe.
But, boss wants office space to rent. 11. (Map of WTC buildings)
So the young, innovative engineers and architects designed skyscrapers with Hundreds of slender, hollow steel support columns around the outside and a strong steel core but without the usual heavy concrete support. Instead, they sprayed on fireproofing for the steel supports to lighten the structure. They built in structural redundancies to hold three times the buildings’ static weight... not five times as Richard Gage asserts... with hat-shaped trusses in the top of the building to shift loads to other columns at almost the speed of sound in the event of a structural crisis. By the way we’ll see that falling loads quickly exceed even 5 times the structural capacity of any building. The towers would be very resilient and able to withstand major hurricanes and even jet plane crashes as long as there was no burning fuel. As Time Magazine reported in the early 70s, the next generation of skyscrapers could rise higher than ever because of their brilliant lightweight structure. Young architects like Leslie Robertson seemed to defy gravity, soaring to new building heights while creating exciting open-air designs with 72 foot long trusses, longer than ever before used. As Richard Gage points out in his video, “the 208' x 208' open floor plan and the long spans departs from the high rise tradition of a dense grid of steel.” Richard Gage also pointed out that “Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8 inch bolts.” Frank de Martini, quoted in Blueprint for Truth, compared the perimeter structure to the screen on a door which easily survives being punctured. Tragically, he died on 9/11 and is unable to offer us his hindsight perspective now that the buildings have collapsed.
The simple square building design meant that many of the steel columns, trusses and facades were prefabricated and standardized. The buildings were 95% air by volume, 220 acres of floor space in two towers, one full acre per floor, mostly rentable space. They made them beautiful in a modern way....Alcoa aluminum still boasts about “ T, a shiny lightweight aluminum alloy” that was the outside facade of the towers and helped attract renters.
12 Slide of defective fireproofing In 1993 there was a terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. After the 1993 bombing, inspectors found fireproofing to be deficient. By 911, replacement was completed on only 18 floors in 1 WTC, and on 13 floors in 2 WTC. The deficient fireproofing probably didn’t matter, as much of it in the crash zone was stripped of by the planes anyway.
13 Truss Seat SLIDE. The long trusses were designed to maximize open space and were up to 72 feet long. They sat on these truss seats and were fastened by 5/8 inch bolts.
So here’s a collapse scenario:
Number 1: On 9/11, Eduardo Kausel, at MIT writes:
14 (SLIDE of plane on its way) “The North Tower was hit at 8:46 above the 96th floor by a Boeing 767 flying at (429 mph)... The South Tower was hit at 9:03 above the 80th floor by another 767 flying at (503 mph).” ..notice size of the plane relative to the one-acre building... it’s a huge jet, covering 60% of the width of the building, it weighs 282,000 pounds, and it’s going over 500 mph!
15 SLIDE of crash/explosion Forensic analyst Jonathan Barnett, who was quoted in Blueprint for Truth but doesn’t believe in controlled demolition, said the planes hit the towers at 30 and 45 degrees respectively, causing damage to the maximum possible floors, stripping the painted-on fire insulation and cutting off the water sprinkler pipes. NIST says 43 of 47 core columns were stripped of insulation plus 60,000 sq feet of floor. The plane hitting the south tower impacted with 50% more energy because of its higher speed, and went in almost horizontally, so more of the aircraft passed straight through the offices, hitting the core directly, without slamming through as many concrete floors.
16 Slide Picture 30 seconds later immediate mechanical damage: F. R. Greening says the vertical collapse safety factor was reduced from 3 to 2 when 60% of the columns on the damaged side were destroyed. The compression wave from the impact visibly damaged the structural integrity of four floors below the crash. Shifting the load to the surviving beams created an “eccentric load,” so the pressures on the remaining structures were vertical (as always) and lateral. Compression waves from the collisions torqued the building. Escapees reported wall cracks and doors jammed shut well below the crash site, evidence of structural weakening. NIST reports that people were knocked down and furniture flew around many floors below the crash.
This is the mechanical damage.
17 Number 4: With the fires, the real destruction begins. According to NIST, some of the jet fuel exploded immediately, and fires spread to all four faces within 15 minutes. Soon smoke is pouring out of the vent from the 109th floor. Suicide leaps occur by the hundreds as the smoke chokes people on the even the top floors. Over 1000 windows break out as the fire spreads, providing over 12,000 sq feet of fire ventilation.
18 (SLIDE Purdue computer simulation of crash inside) Eduardo Kausel said: “The ensuing fireball set the buildings ablaze in a virtually uncontrollable, fierce fire... The intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some (750°F), which caused the steel to lose both its stiffness and resistance.” Leslie Robertson is a designer of the World Trade Center and was quoted in Blueprint for Truth about the fires. As I mentioned, he dismisses the controlled demolition theory. He said, “With the 707 the fuel load was not considered in the design. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that... Little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” So the buildings were originally designed to withstand the physical impact of a plane crash, but their model did not include the destructive power of the burning jet fuel!
Purdue University spent thousands of hours feeding in precise technical specifications to create this 2009 computer simulation of the first second of what the mechanical damage and exploding fire would have looked like in the building: It shows the plane’s destructive power and confirms the major findings of the NIST Report.
19. SLIDE OF MORE REASONS WHEN READY: 90,850 litres of viscous dense “blue gunk” burning jet fuel created massive conflagrations. NIST says some of that fuel sprayed on some of the furniture and the tens of thousands of filing cabinets and cubicles, and much of the rest coursed down the elevator shafts, heating and softening the vertical core beams, blowing out doors and walls all the way to the basement, exploding on the 77th and 22nd floors of the North Tower, and on the west side lobby, and triggering a fatal fireball on the concourse. The energy of the explosions radiated with equal ferocity forward, backward, left, right, up, down, diagonally, and most of this explosive energy was absorbed by the building itself. What we see outside is actually only one direction of the explosive energy.
NIST Tower Collapse Sequence: NIST says These fires led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
20. Number 5. (Steel Slide) is this consistent with the properties of steel? It melts at around 27500. Office fires can exceed 15000 F, but Colin Bailey says temperatures increase over time, and can get as high as 20120. Jet fuel burns at 800-15000. At 11000-1200o, steel loses 50% of its integrity. The thermal limit of structural steel is 750o. Dr. Allen Firmage asserts that steel girders are bent at 800-10000 , to create curved frames for bridges. steeluniversity.org explains that steel begins to lose its resistance to distortion at 5720. At azom.com, they say steel expands in length at temperatures as low as 3000.
NIST says pockets of the WTC fires reached 18000. Thomas Eager asserts that with limited oxygen, the fire temperature topped out at around 1400o. Corus Construction Co’s website says that steel is usually only 100-200 degrees cooler than the surrounding air.
22 (Huge fire slide)
Steel was up to over 1900 degrees in local “hot spots” especially in the far end of the South Tower where the jet pushed tons of debris into a pile. Other places never got over 500 degrees. According to Thomas Eagar who is quoted in Blueprint for Truth but opposes the Controlled Demolition theory, localized hot temperatures weakened some steel, and the temperature differential is also helped destroy the structural integrity of the beams.
“No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in seconds.... Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread... across... the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire.” NIST says that At 9:37 a.m., a 105th floor occupant reported that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed.
Number 6: (NIST picture with lattice) By 10:23 am in WTC I, the sagging of the steel girders caused walls to bow inward 55 inches.. Above the impact zone, the entire building tilted south. Here are two pictures, taken about 50 minutes apart. (See sag picture) This has been called a utility cable; NIST calls it a sagging floor. (See video of beams sagging and snapping) In this simulation the long support beams functioned as one unit across large areas. They gradually sagged downward enough to help cause the inward bowing of the outer columns; varying degrees of fire damage on all four sides of the building caused irregular stresses everywhere. Somehow the 5/8 inch bolts held fast as the building bowed inward, in spite of the fact that many were weakened by heat. NIST says they went from being able to hold 36,000 pounds each down to about 8,000 pounds when heated to 1400 degrees.
SLIDE: BOWING ONE MINUTE BEFORE COLLAPSE. By the time collapse was imminent, bowing was extreme.
SLIDE: MORE REASONS FOR NATURAL COLLAPSE
911 a SLIDE: PICTURE OF ANTENNA and smoke:
Near the end, smoke was billowing through the top of the building as the fire and smoke spread upwards. Richard Gage said “the fires were diminishing severely,” but in fact they had grown from three floors to at least fourteen floors in less than an hour. At the critical moment of failure, three outside walls were nearing capacity but still providing support. The core, on the other hand, had compressed due to broken columns and creeping behavior, and the hat truss that connected the perimeter walls to the core was partially suspending the core.
The weak south wall buckled first and was momentarily supported by the hat truss, which buckled in the center first, causing the “antenna drop” seen by FEMA and others. As the building began its collapse, air pressure pushed smoke upwards and out the sides. Richard called this “evidence of explosions on top of Building 1,” but if there had been 4500 degree thermites at the very top of the building, then no one could have walked on the debris pile.
In addition, in a classic controlled demolitions, no smoke comes out the top...
- We know from 911 calls that people in the upper floors were severely suffering from smoke inhalation. Is that also only explicable with explosives, or would that not rather more likely indicate that hot smoke can rise through a structure?
Look at the movement of the smoke in absolute terms, rather than relative to the falling towers, and note that the smoke and dust left behind by the collapses had no significant upward velocity component.
Or as one scientist put it, “he actually said "smoke rises" and used it as proof of a CD?” ...I wonder if Richard is trying to say they took the towers down using demolition charges on the roof. - I also don’t understand why smoke ejection at the top is indicative of explosions?”
The building that had twice as much weight above the crash site collapsed twice as quickly, not surprising in a natural collapse scenario.
NIST said that At 10:20 a.m., the police aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the WTC I North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., they reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m..
Number 9: WTC II South Tower
There were a few differences. The South Tower was hit at 9:03 am, causing building to sway 27 inches back and forth. The off center impact twisted the upper part counterclockwise. 911 calls reported falling ceiling tiles, collapsed walls, jet fuel smells.
The top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story.
Richard reported that firefighters witnessed sounds and flashes of explosions, orange and red flashes all around the building,” which is true. BELLOWS SLIDE At the onset of both collapses, ½ million cubic feet of air per floor was being pushed down onto the fires, creating a monumental “bellows effect,” literally stoking the fires and quickly creating a massive “ring of fire” around the perimeter of the collapse zone. That is a much more plausible explanation for the fire’s sudden growth. If it were from controlled demolition, similar rings of fire would have been visible on dozens of other floors during the collapse, and they were not.
SLIDE OF THIS: .NIST says “no building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11.”
SLIDE SOUTH 13 story FACADE Number 11: NIST predicted many breaks in the support columns every one to three stories especially at the weaker welded connections, but many randomly damaged steel supports were much smaller, and others much bigger, like this 13-story high facade, which would have been pulverized by a controlled demolition.
There has not been a single published, peer-reviewed paper disputing the fundamentals of this collapse theory – not from any person in any department, in any field, in any country in the world. On the other hand, there have been several published results in general support of this collapse hypothesis. This is part of the reason why NIST did not consider the entire duration of the collapses. Early results from engineers and scientists indicated that, once the upper stories began to fall, the complete collapse of the structure was not in doubt, and there was no credible result to the contrary. There still are none.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued their technical findings on the collapses of these buildings to determine causes and make recommendations for new Building and Fire Code standards. The National Fire Protection Association and the International Code Council both took NIST’s recommendations and redesigned their templates for building and fire codes, and unlike Richard Gage I believe those revisions will save lives. The likely natural collapse scenario you have just heard is compiled from my research with NIST as well as a host of other scientific sources. In the next section of Blueprint for Truth Reconsidered, we will examine some of Richard Gage’s objections to this Natural Collapse theory.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Overall this looks to me like a very good, clear and thorough account for the layman of the events leading to the collapses. A few minor comments:
I think most truthers, and probably most debunkers too, would argue that anyone who does believe in controlled demolition is, by definition, a member of the 9/11 truth movement. Could you rephrase it as something more like "Outside of the 911 Truth movement, I have yet to meet a single scientifically trained person who agrees with any of the major scientific assertions that are used to support the theory of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Buildings"?
It's not really clear what that means; were they diving at those angles, banked at those angles, or at those angles horizontally? The statement's a bit confusing.
The truthers will cry foul at any statement that confuses thermite and explosives, as this one does (even though they'll happily treat them as interchangeable if they want to). Also, if there had been thermite at the top of the building, it would have cooled very quickly once it had reacted; thermite burns in seconds, and near the top of the rubble pile it would have cooled in a matter of minutes, or at most hours.
I presume the last zero is a degree symbol - there are quite a few of these. Steel actually expands in length for any increase in temperature; heat it by half a degree and it'll expand. Because the expansion is roughly proportional to the change in temperature, it has to be heated a lot for the expansion to be noticed, but what it takes to be noticed depends on what you're using it for. It's well known, for example, that steel railroad rails need expansion joints to stop them buckling on a hot day, even though they won't get much hotter than 100 degrees F.
I hope that's helpful. Apart from that it all looks good so far.
Dave
I think most truthers, and probably most debunkers too, would argue that anyone who does believe in controlled demolition is, by definition, a member of the 9/11 truth movement. Could you rephrase it as something more like "Outside of the 911 Truth movement, I have yet to meet a single scientifically trained person who agrees with any of the major scientific assertions that are used to support the theory of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Buildings"?
It's not really clear what that means; were they diving at those angles, banked at those angles, or at those angles horizontally? The statement's a bit confusing.
The truthers will cry foul at any statement that confuses thermite and explosives, as this one does (even though they'll happily treat them as interchangeable if they want to). Also, if there had been thermite at the top of the building, it would have cooled very quickly once it had reacted; thermite burns in seconds, and near the top of the rubble pile it would have cooled in a matter of minutes, or at most hours.
I presume the last zero is a degree symbol - there are quite a few of these. Steel actually expands in length for any increase in temperature; heat it by half a degree and it'll expand. Because the expansion is roughly proportional to the change in temperature, it has to be heated a lot for the expansion to be noticed, but what it takes to be noticed depends on what you're using it for. It's well known, for example, that steel railroad rails need expansion joints to stop them buckling on a hot day, even though they won't get much hotter than 100 degrees F.
I hope that's helpful. Apart from that it all looks good so far.
Dave
Indeed, and steel also goes through cooling-reduction. I don't know the english term for the opposite of thermal-expansion). Also, if it's rapidly cooled it can cause the metal to bow or twist a bit, depending on the thickness, its previous hardening and the alloys of its make-up.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Thermal contraction is the term you're looking for. Yes, the broader picture is that any piece of steel (or, indeed, just about anything else) has a length that varies with temperature, whatever the temperature.
Dave
Indeed and well put. Rapid introductions of notably different temperature produce other results when the metal expands or contracts. By "other" I'm merely hinting to, well, for example when I used to work in a smithy I had to make sure the water where we laid the steel-bars after hardening wasn't too cool. The difference of temperature and introducing the two extremes quickly could cause the bar to curve a bit, and whatever the shape we intended for them this would cause problems (some were a bit lazy to pre-heat the water to the ideal 40-50 degrees C).
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Part Two: Ten Ways This Looks Like Controlled Demolition?
Thanks all, great start. BTW Richard told me he believes explosive nanothermites were used in the twin Towers and thermate for Building 7, so I'm changing the "explosives on the top" to "explosive nanothermites on the top." I have pix of first responders walking on the debris right after the collapse, so I'm assuming these 4500 degree nanothermites would make the tops too hot to walk on. I clarified other parts like the 30 degree banking of the planes. And BTW, when I copy and paste, the degree signs look like another zero at the end of my temperature numbers.
So here's Part Two. Have fun!
Comments on 10 ways of Ctld Demo:
Face: In Part One of my rebuttal to Richard Gages’s 911 Controlled Demolition Video Blueprint for Truth, I listed 28 reasons why the scientific evidence refutes his position. In Part Two, we will begin to investigate the ten ways Richard says the tower collapses show ctld demo and ask if they are true. We’ll also look at TWENTY? more ways why the collapse of the Twin Towers could not possibly be a controlled demolition. Richard promised to “present the technical truths, the evidence found for explosives.” As we will see, the technical truths do not support his theory. We’ll cover these assertions in more detail in later chapters of this video, but here are Richard’s ten reasons why these building collapses were like a classic controlled demolition:
SLIDE OF TEN CLAIMS
He is telling you what to look for and then showing you slides and videos with a compelling narrative to convince you that you are seeing those ten things. Throughout this video I will be asking if these claims are true, one at a time. Here are Richard’s ten claims and very brief rebuttals:
1.) Sudden onset of destruction at the base of the building (destruction began 80 stories up inside a fire zone, where a controlled demolition is impossible)
2.) Straight down, symmetrical collapse into building’s footprint (all 3 buildings fell into their weakest points and scattered debris nonsymmetrically over 16 acres)
3.) Demolition Waves Remove Column Support (rapid removal of column support happens in controlled demolitions, but in a natural collapse the failure of one column shifts the load to other columns at the speed of sound)
4.) Free fall through the path of greatest resistance (the Twin Towers fell at only 2/3 of free fall and encountered significant resistance on their way down, and most buildings do not collapse at free fall when they are demolished anyway).
PICTURE OF SOMETHING STANDING 5.) Total dismemberment of the steel structures so it’s loaded and ready for shipping (the debris pile does not show total dismemberment at all)
SLIDE: DAMAGE TO NEARBY BUILDINGS 5.) Minimal damage to adjacent structures (the Twin Towers collapses triggered huge multiple fires and billions of dollars in damage to many nearby buildings)
Sounds and flashes of explosions (true, so we’ll compare the explosive sounds of controlled demolitions to the sounds of the Twin Towers collapsing)
PICTURE OF Enormous clouds of pulverized concrete (true, this happens in both natural collapse and controlled demolitions)
FACE:
Isolated explosive ejections 20-40 stories below demolition front (the squibs from the Twin Towers are caused by air pressure and are random, unlike the patterned squibs from controlled demolitions)
And finally, chemical evidence of cutter charges (claims that have not been proven, as we will see)
There are some ways in which the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings looks like controlled demolition and some ways it does not. So we have to look more closely at the evidence. Even Richard Gage, near the end of Blueprint for Truth, said that these collapses showed “all the features of a classic controlled demolition, with those exceptions which are atypical of classic controlled demolition.” So you see, we agree!
Slides:
Slide of reasons: Reason # So let’s compare the collapses to what we know about classic controlled demolitions. By definition these were not controlled demos. IF they were Ctl demos, then all the variables would be isolated to have CONTROL of precisely when and where explosions happen to trigger a collapse. Variables like plane crashes, massive fires, 40,000 workers watching holes being drilled in their office walls or worried New Yorkers working 24/7 and hearing tapping sounds, strong smells of welding torches for ctl drmo prep, etc. are not the hallmarks of control. I did not find one worker report of suspicious activity. Not one ctl demo firm has said it would be possible to carry out ctld demo with all these variables.
Even former ctld demo employee Tom Sullivan, a rare person in the business who believes this was a ctld demo, told me, “ Not getting this critical timing right results in a hung structure, meaning floors and entire sections to not collapse but rather pile up.... It is very hard indeed to get these buildings down in a controlled manner under the best of circumstances when everything is studied and indeed controlled.” A classic controlled demolition is usually preceded by very loud explosions and a logical pattern of squibs.
VIDEO SLIDE: How does a classic controlled demolition sound? HERE is the rumbling collapse of a World Trade Center Tower. Here’s the soundtrack so you can HEAR the difference in sounds.
VIDEO: HERE is a classic ctl demo. BOOM! Noise, big explosions at base, squibs blowing out before the collapse begins in a logical organized pattern, not at random. You can see the explosives knocking out the core and all supporting structures at once.
SLIDE LATERAL EJECTION
Richard Gage claims that the Twin Towers were brought down in a deceptive controlled demolition, so the explosive sounds would be masked through through the use of very hot explosive nanothermites, which he claims caused massive dust clouds and multi-ton objects to fly hundreds of feet across the plaza.
He can’t have it both ways. Any demolition with 30-60 tons of explosive nanothermites would create enormous fireballs and shock waves strong enough to visibly compress water vapor from the atmosphere. It would create deafening 140db sounds a half mile away and be witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. If it was a quieter, heat-based, thermate-created demolition, it couldn’t have caused the ejections.
SLIDE OF THIS Reason: Only six companies in the world can bring down tall buildings. They all dismiss this theory. They can’t tear down the world’s tallest buildings in secret in an entirely new way while a raging fire is going on, tossing in two crashing 767s to randomize structural damage and make the feat even more virtuosic.
Face: So far I’ve given a total of 399999999 reasons favoring natural collapse. Richard Gage’s ten reasons for controlled demolition are all highly suspect at best. Near the beginning of my March 6 2011 debate with Richard, I started with an invitation to be open... To listen carefully, and then decide. In that debate, Richard’s rhetoric set a trap to slam your mind shut over a single debating point, saying if I don’t explain several things to his satisfaction, “then the debate is over.” I offered dozens of carefully researched, clearly explained reasons for natural collapse, inviting the audience to suspend judgment and decide at the end where the weight of the evidence lies..
Here’s a very brief review of Richard’s the “debate is over” rhetoric.
SLIDE: The melting of steel girders: or the debate is over.
Two steel beams showed high temperature sulfur corrosion, not enough to explain a global collapse. That Sulfidized steel melted at 1740 degrees, a thousand degrees lower than pure steel and within the temperature range of a normal building fire..
SLIDE: Several tons of molten steel or iron in the debris pile of all three buildings . or the debate is over. (PICTURE OF LOTS OF ALUMINUM DEBRIS) The debris pile showed abundant aluminum, and indeed there were also several tons of melted aluminum discolored by debris, with a melting point of only 1200 degrees, not nearly hot enough to melt steel.
Face:
[The billions of previously molten iron microspheres or the debate is over. ]
And the iron microspheres? In 70s, workers welded thousands of steel beams and splattered microspheres. We’ll say more about these later.
The red-gray chips of advanced energetic nanothermite composite material found in the WTC dust. or the debate is over." This has not been proven, as we will see when we investigate this further in another section of this presentation.
The symmetrical free-fall collapse of Building 7, or the debate is over. That is a subject I will also explain in another section.
In the course of this video I will meet all five of Richard’s rhetorical challenges with credible, carefully researched answers. I will also visit his ten reasons for controlled demolition and investigate them in much greater detail. In this presentation I have also already given over 39999999999999 reasons why the scientific evidence supports natural collapse and not controlled demolition. In our March 6 2011 debate, Richard left dozens and dozens of my assertions unanswered. He tries to shift the burden of proof onto me, and I voluntarily accepted it. But Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The reality is that fair or unfair, the burden of proof in the scientific community is on Richard. He has made an extraordinary claim but has yet to produce extraordinary proof.
Thanks all, great start. BTW Richard told me he believes explosive nanothermites were used in the twin Towers and thermate for Building 7, so I'm changing the "explosives on the top" to "explosive nanothermites on the top." I have pix of first responders walking on the debris right after the collapse, so I'm assuming these 4500 degree nanothermites would make the tops too hot to walk on. I clarified other parts like the 30 degree banking of the planes. And BTW, when I copy and paste, the degree signs look like another zero at the end of my temperature numbers.
So here's Part Two. Have fun!
Comments on 10 ways of Ctld Demo:
Face: In Part One of my rebuttal to Richard Gages’s 911 Controlled Demolition Video Blueprint for Truth, I listed 28 reasons why the scientific evidence refutes his position. In Part Two, we will begin to investigate the ten ways Richard says the tower collapses show ctld demo and ask if they are true. We’ll also look at TWENTY? more ways why the collapse of the Twin Towers could not possibly be a controlled demolition. Richard promised to “present the technical truths, the evidence found for explosives.” As we will see, the technical truths do not support his theory. We’ll cover these assertions in more detail in later chapters of this video, but here are Richard’s ten reasons why these building collapses were like a classic controlled demolition:
SLIDE OF TEN CLAIMS
He is telling you what to look for and then showing you slides and videos with a compelling narrative to convince you that you are seeing those ten things. Throughout this video I will be asking if these claims are true, one at a time. Here are Richard’s ten claims and very brief rebuttals:
1.) Sudden onset of destruction at the base of the building (destruction began 80 stories up inside a fire zone, where a controlled demolition is impossible)
2.) Straight down, symmetrical collapse into building’s footprint (all 3 buildings fell into their weakest points and scattered debris nonsymmetrically over 16 acres)
3.) Demolition Waves Remove Column Support (rapid removal of column support happens in controlled demolitions, but in a natural collapse the failure of one column shifts the load to other columns at the speed of sound)
4.) Free fall through the path of greatest resistance (the Twin Towers fell at only 2/3 of free fall and encountered significant resistance on their way down, and most buildings do not collapse at free fall when they are demolished anyway).
PICTURE OF SOMETHING STANDING 5.) Total dismemberment of the steel structures so it’s loaded and ready for shipping (the debris pile does not show total dismemberment at all)
SLIDE: DAMAGE TO NEARBY BUILDINGS 5.) Minimal damage to adjacent structures (the Twin Towers collapses triggered huge multiple fires and billions of dollars in damage to many nearby buildings)
Sounds and flashes of explosions (true, so we’ll compare the explosive sounds of controlled demolitions to the sounds of the Twin Towers collapsing)
PICTURE OF Enormous clouds of pulverized concrete (true, this happens in both natural collapse and controlled demolitions)
FACE:
Isolated explosive ejections 20-40 stories below demolition front (the squibs from the Twin Towers are caused by air pressure and are random, unlike the patterned squibs from controlled demolitions)
And finally, chemical evidence of cutter charges (claims that have not been proven, as we will see)
There are some ways in which the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings looks like controlled demolition and some ways it does not. So we have to look more closely at the evidence. Even Richard Gage, near the end of Blueprint for Truth, said that these collapses showed “all the features of a classic controlled demolition, with those exceptions which are atypical of classic controlled demolition.” So you see, we agree!
Slides:
Slide of reasons: Reason # So let’s compare the collapses to what we know about classic controlled demolitions. By definition these were not controlled demos. IF they were Ctl demos, then all the variables would be isolated to have CONTROL of precisely when and where explosions happen to trigger a collapse. Variables like plane crashes, massive fires, 40,000 workers watching holes being drilled in their office walls or worried New Yorkers working 24/7 and hearing tapping sounds, strong smells of welding torches for ctl drmo prep, etc. are not the hallmarks of control. I did not find one worker report of suspicious activity. Not one ctl demo firm has said it would be possible to carry out ctld demo with all these variables.
Even former ctld demo employee Tom Sullivan, a rare person in the business who believes this was a ctld demo, told me, “ Not getting this critical timing right results in a hung structure, meaning floors and entire sections to not collapse but rather pile up.... It is very hard indeed to get these buildings down in a controlled manner under the best of circumstances when everything is studied and indeed controlled.” A classic controlled demolition is usually preceded by very loud explosions and a logical pattern of squibs.
VIDEO SLIDE: How does a classic controlled demolition sound? HERE is the rumbling collapse of a World Trade Center Tower. Here’s the soundtrack so you can HEAR the difference in sounds.
VIDEO: HERE is a classic ctl demo. BOOM! Noise, big explosions at base, squibs blowing out before the collapse begins in a logical organized pattern, not at random. You can see the explosives knocking out the core and all supporting structures at once.
SLIDE LATERAL EJECTION
Richard Gage claims that the Twin Towers were brought down in a deceptive controlled demolition, so the explosive sounds would be masked through through the use of very hot explosive nanothermites, which he claims caused massive dust clouds and multi-ton objects to fly hundreds of feet across the plaza.
He can’t have it both ways. Any demolition with 30-60 tons of explosive nanothermites would create enormous fireballs and shock waves strong enough to visibly compress water vapor from the atmosphere. It would create deafening 140db sounds a half mile away and be witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. If it was a quieter, heat-based, thermate-created demolition, it couldn’t have caused the ejections.
SLIDE OF THIS Reason: Only six companies in the world can bring down tall buildings. They all dismiss this theory. They can’t tear down the world’s tallest buildings in secret in an entirely new way while a raging fire is going on, tossing in two crashing 767s to randomize structural damage and make the feat even more virtuosic.
Face: So far I’ve given a total of 399999999 reasons favoring natural collapse. Richard Gage’s ten reasons for controlled demolition are all highly suspect at best. Near the beginning of my March 6 2011 debate with Richard, I started with an invitation to be open... To listen carefully, and then decide. In that debate, Richard’s rhetoric set a trap to slam your mind shut over a single debating point, saying if I don’t explain several things to his satisfaction, “then the debate is over.” I offered dozens of carefully researched, clearly explained reasons for natural collapse, inviting the audience to suspend judgment and decide at the end where the weight of the evidence lies..
Here’s a very brief review of Richard’s the “debate is over” rhetoric.
SLIDE: The melting of steel girders: or the debate is over.
Two steel beams showed high temperature sulfur corrosion, not enough to explain a global collapse. That Sulfidized steel melted at 1740 degrees, a thousand degrees lower than pure steel and within the temperature range of a normal building fire..
SLIDE: Several tons of molten steel or iron in the debris pile of all three buildings . or the debate is over. (PICTURE OF LOTS OF ALUMINUM DEBRIS) The debris pile showed abundant aluminum, and indeed there were also several tons of melted aluminum discolored by debris, with a melting point of only 1200 degrees, not nearly hot enough to melt steel.
Face:
[The billions of previously molten iron microspheres or the debate is over. ]
And the iron microspheres? In 70s, workers welded thousands of steel beams and splattered microspheres. We’ll say more about these later.
The red-gray chips of advanced energetic nanothermite composite material found in the WTC dust. or the debate is over." This has not been proven, as we will see when we investigate this further in another section of this presentation.
The symmetrical free-fall collapse of Building 7, or the debate is over. That is a subject I will also explain in another section.
In the course of this video I will meet all five of Richard’s rhetorical challenges with credible, carefully researched answers. I will also visit his ten reasons for controlled demolition and investigate them in much greater detail. In this presentation I have also already given over 39999999999999 reasons why the scientific evidence supports natural collapse and not controlled demolition. In our March 6 2011 debate, Richard left dozens and dozens of my assertions unanswered. He tries to shift the burden of proof onto me, and I voluntarily accepted it. But Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The reality is that fair or unfair, the burden of proof in the scientific community is on Richard. He has made an extraordinary claim but has yet to produce extraordinary proof.
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,657
LOL!
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Liking part two. You could be accused of lack of balance by refuting all of Gage's major points as he makes them, but I don't personally believe a position as intellectually bankrupt as Gage's deserves any balance.
Dave
Dave
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
I'd like to add a few comments to your points...
2) The tower collapses were not implosions, so were the opposite of controlled demolitions. Also the failures were not symmetrical.
4) Freefall or lack of it (the towers) is not an indicator of controlled demolition anyway. It is irrelevant.
5) Tower exterior steel broke apart often along the original welds, which leave 3-story chunks.
Also real explosive squibs involve a bright visible 'flash', and the velocity of the ejections from the towers is not indicative of high explosives.
The complete lack of evidence on the recovered steel (most of which was shipped and inspected) of cutter charges rules out explosive controlled demolition.
I would add that no controlled demolition in history has taken place in a building which was either burning or was hit by a jet aircraft.
CD experts - even Danny Jowenko, a European CD expert who had a brief look at a partial video of the collapse of WTC 7, did not think it could be done while the building was burning. Nor did he think the towers were demolished using CD.
Great work so far.
AE
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Thanks Alienentity for the encouraging words. At this early stage of the rebuttal I am using one-sentence rebuttals for Gage's ten points, then more detailed rebuttals later. This way, if people want a quick ten-minute response they can just look at this part, with the promise of more detailed replies later. So I am saving your post for the info in it I will use down the line.
Alien Entity is your name, huh? So it was YOU who brought down the towers? Is it you who is orchestrating the Rapture today as well?
Alien Entity is your name, huh? So it was YOU who brought down the towers? Is it you who is orchestrating the Rapture today as well?
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Chris, I'm not familiar with the debate that you've had with Gage thus far so I don't know if he brought this up with you, but he often brings this up as one of the first prerequisites for the idea that the WTC should not have collapsed. It would probably be a good point to ask him if he does in your next exchange.
Usually he's brought up the idea that no steel frame high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. This part I'm not concerned with, it's actually how he follows up this statement that you'd likely benefit questioning him on. As is on his site, they usually show examples of buildings that have [as claimed by them] "burned longer and hotter" than the WTC. Many of these examples are built much differently than the towers; such as materials, structural systems, and how the fires started and were fought and you might benefit from asking how much he brought those differences into consideration.
Did he ever bring that up to you in your previous debates?
Usually he's brought up the idea that no steel frame high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire. This part I'm not concerned with, it's actually how he follows up this statement that you'd likely benefit questioning him on. As is on his site, they usually show examples of buildings that have [as claimed by them] "burned longer and hotter" than the WTC. Many of these examples are built much differently than the towers; such as materials, structural systems, and how the fires started and were fought and you might benefit from asking how much he brought those differences into consideration.
Did he ever bring that up to you in your previous debates?