Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi LashL and all,
In the next three weeks or so I will be putting out more rebuttal texts for proofing and corrections for my Gage one-sided debate. Please LashL, if you can stand it, keep us around a little longer on this thread, because the help has been incredible.
And guys, cmon, Richard and I never once talked about the Dixie Chicks. Richard stays 98% focused on the science of controlled demolition, and our debate reflected that. Issues coming up very soon for me will be foreknowledge of Building 7's collapse, size of fires, free-fall collapse of 7, more eyewitness reports like Barry Jennings and his co-witness and the changing story there, and Kevin Paddington (sp?). Then I wrap it all up with the question of an investigation. Chris7 will enjoy another fifteen seconds of fame as I use his very condensed summary of some of the things 911 commission people said about the report. That merits mention and a serious look.
I'll be working on the slideshow for the next five days or so, then the final drafts of the Building 7 texts for your corrections, then off to YouTube production etc.
Chris
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
It's McPadden and words cannot fully express my feelings about being included in your *********
I will no doubt have some correction suggestions on your WTC 7 portion that I'm sure you won't want to miss.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The only thing that is corroborated is what Jennings AND Hess said on 9/11. "There was an explosion and we were trapped on the 8th floor." After that their stories change and conflict. Since there is no corroboration for any of the changes they must be taken with a grain of salt IMO. There is video of Hess calling for help from a broken 8th floor window in the NE corner but no time is given.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oArHZqyNewE&feature=player_embedded
Steve Oliver
New Blood
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5
Chris
2/3 weeks eh? Richard Gage is coming to London on the 20 June.He is presenting a lecture at the Royal Institute of British Architects. Not sure if any neutral architects or just Truthers will actually be there, but I'm planning to go along and ask him what I hope will be some probing questions.
As it stands I'm planning to work off the NIST reports & Ryan Mackey's white paper, but I don't have a background in engineering or chemistry so having to hand your rebuttals would be fantastic if they could be ready by then. But don't rush it - and thank you for all the hard work you are doing rebutting the Truthers.
I'll also sit down and give your initial debate with Richard another spin. Hopefully that will ensure that I know what Richard is going to say in his lecture and I can start preparing for that. As EdX points out above Richard Gage's lectures should be on autopilot by now which should aid my preparation.
Cheers
Steve
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Look at the moron in the video comments saying its fake lol
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
The explosion he experienced was the towers collapsing on to WTC7. He was confused when he thought that neither had collapsed. This alienentity video is a good start for you:
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Some relevant threads regarding Jennings' testimony:
- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85646
- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3850172
Hope that helps.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi Steve,
Here's your post: 2/3 weeks eh? Richard Gage is coming to London on the 20 June.He is presenting a lecture at the Royal Institute of British Architects. Not sure if any neutral architects or just Truthers will actually be there, but I'm planning to go along and ask him what I hope will be some probing questions.
As it stands I'm planning to work off the NIST reports & Ryan Mackey's white paper, but I don't have a background in engineering or chemistry so having to hand your rebuttals would be fantastic if they could be ready by then. But don't rush it - and thank you for all the hard work you are doing rebutting the Truthers.
I'll also sit down and give your initial debate with Richard another spin. Hopefully that will ensure that I know what Richard is going to say in his lecture and I can start preparing for that. As EdX points out above Richard Gage's lectures should be on autopilot by now which should aid my preparation.
I MIGHT have sojething up in a week, but the usual tech glitches may slow this down. On THIS thread, if you go back over the past 200 posts or so, you'll see the text of most of the first half of my rebuttal, one big long section at a time.
Say hi to Richard for me!
Chris
Here's your post: 2/3 weeks eh? Richard Gage is coming to London on the 20 June.He is presenting a lecture at the Royal Institute of British Architects. Not sure if any neutral architects or just Truthers will actually be there, but I'm planning to go along and ask him what I hope will be some probing questions.
As it stands I'm planning to work off the NIST reports & Ryan Mackey's white paper, but I don't have a background in engineering or chemistry so having to hand your rebuttals would be fantastic if they could be ready by then. But don't rush it - and thank you for all the hard work you are doing rebutting the Truthers.
I'll also sit down and give your initial debate with Richard another spin. Hopefully that will ensure that I know what Richard is going to say in his lecture and I can start preparing for that. As EdX points out above Richard Gage's lectures should be on autopilot by now which should aid my preparation.
I MIGHT have sojething up in a week, but the usual tech glitches may slow this down. On THIS thread, if you go back over the past 200 posts or so, you'll see the text of most of the first half of my rebuttal, one big long section at a time.
Say hi to Richard for me!
Chris
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
just added the quote tags so as to avoid confusion over where you began commenting
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Actually it is helpful for me. In the search for objective corroboration of the Jennings testimony, there is this video but there's no way to link it to the time it happened.
Chris
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Brief Summary of NIST Report in Debate
Hi all,
This is the straight 5-minute summary of the Building 7 NIST Report 2008 Richard and I agreed on for our debate. It was read by Tom Kiely, our moderator and a host on Rule of Law Radio. This will stay as is unless there is something grossly wrong with it, because it's just a platform we both used for our debating of Building 7.
Chris Mohr
5 minutes of facts we agree on about collapse of Building 7
SLIDE OF BUILDING 7 NEAR TOWERS STANDING
In 2008, NIST issued its final report on Building 7. There are both differences and similarities between Building 7 and the two towers. Some differences:
A.) No plane hit bld 7 .
B.) Towers fires spread horizontally; bldg 7 fires spread vertically up and down the south face and then inside the building.
D.) The Towers suffered structural damage from the plane crash; Building Seven had very little structural damage.
E.) NIST Quote: “The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.”
F.). The Towers burned for under two hours each before going down; Building 7 got hit with burning debris at 10:28 am and collapsed at 5:20 pm after almost 7 hours of fires.
SLIDE OF BUILDING DESIGN WITH COLUMN 79: NIST: Column 79 helped support the east penthouse of the building.
VIDEO OF TRUSSES
Building 7 had a large open atrium in the lobby and was held up by columns and three complex truss systems.
SLIDE OF TRUSSES PLUS COLUMN 79
SLIDE OF RICHARD’S PHOTO: Here is a photo of Column 79 and the nearby structure.
So now I will just paraphrase the NIST Report so we know what they claim:
that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire. Fires burned all afternoon esp. on the lower floors.
SLIDE OF DRAWING OF DAMAGE
Separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.
SLIDE OF DEBRIS HITTING BUILDING 7
Firefighters reported large gashes and fires in the south face of Building Seven but NIST says there was not much structural damage.
SLIDE OF FIRST FLOOR LOBBY.
Building 7 collapsed because heat expanded the floor beams and girders; and their unusual length magnified that effect. Also, connections between structural elements that could not resist the heated loads; and a structure not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
SLIDE OF MINOR FIRES ON NORTH PERIMETER
The north perimeter showed fires on only a few floors, but
SLIDE OF FIRE DAMAGE DRAWING NIST claims the fires were more extensive on the south side which was hit with burning debris.
SLIDE OF LOWER BUCKLING FLOORS
NEW NIST: a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder caused Floor 13 to collapse, floor failures cascaded to the 5th floor. This collapse weakened Column 79 over nine stories.
Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse.
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81).
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Then, all of the columns east to west failed in the core of the building (58 through 78).
DETAIL SLIDE OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE that reached the building's east penthouse.
Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
VIDEO SLIDE OF COLLAPSE OF NORTH FACE
That series of structural failures was mostly invisible, with east penthouses seen collapsing first, then around seven seconds of nothing visible on the north face.
SLIDE OF WINDOWS WITH SUNLIGHT THROUGH THEM
As evidence of the complete collapse of the penthouse and the structure during those seven seconds, NIST shows this picture of light shining through the windows right after the east penthouse disappeared from view.
FREE FALL COLLAPSE Diagram
IMPORTANT: NIST said the building's exterior facade fell slowly at first, then at approximately free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).[62] The entire facade collapsed downward as a single unit.
SLIDE OF EXPLOSIVES SIMULATION
NIST also did a computer simulation of what an explosive demolition would have looked like. These diagrams of the damage they say it would have caused many more broken windows, much louder sounds, and a different pattern of destruction.
There are several other scientists who have proposed variations on the NIST Theory for Building 7: Arthur Scheuerman, and Ryan Mackey both focus on the long-span beams expanding, sagging and then contracting when the fire moved away and the long beams cooled; NIST focuses more on the building connections. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the University of Edinburg, and Arup have also issued their own scientific criticism of details of the NIST report.
NCSTAR1A (read it here: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-GB/Default.aspx)
Hi all,
This is the straight 5-minute summary of the Building 7 NIST Report 2008 Richard and I agreed on for our debate. It was read by Tom Kiely, our moderator and a host on Rule of Law Radio. This will stay as is unless there is something grossly wrong with it, because it's just a platform we both used for our debating of Building 7.
Chris Mohr
5 minutes of facts we agree on about collapse of Building 7
SLIDE OF BUILDING 7 NEAR TOWERS STANDING
In 2008, NIST issued its final report on Building 7. There are both differences and similarities between Building 7 and the two towers. Some differences:
A.) No plane hit bld 7 .
B.) Towers fires spread horizontally; bldg 7 fires spread vertically up and down the south face and then inside the building.
D.) The Towers suffered structural damage from the plane crash; Building Seven had very little structural damage.
E.) NIST Quote: “The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.”
F.). The Towers burned for under two hours each before going down; Building 7 got hit with burning debris at 10:28 am and collapsed at 5:20 pm after almost 7 hours of fires.
SLIDE OF BUILDING DESIGN WITH COLUMN 79: NIST: Column 79 helped support the east penthouse of the building.
VIDEO OF TRUSSES
Building 7 had a large open atrium in the lobby and was held up by columns and three complex truss systems.
SLIDE OF TRUSSES PLUS COLUMN 79
SLIDE OF RICHARD’S PHOTO: Here is a photo of Column 79 and the nearby structure.
So now I will just paraphrase the NIST Report so we know what they claim:
that fire was the main reason for the collapse, along with lack of water to fight the fire. Fires burned all afternoon esp. on the lower floors.
SLIDE OF DRAWING OF DAMAGE
Separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.
SLIDE OF DEBRIS HITTING BUILDING 7
Firefighters reported large gashes and fires in the south face of Building Seven but NIST says there was not much structural damage.
SLIDE OF FIRST FLOOR LOBBY.
Building 7 collapsed because heat expanded the floor beams and girders; and their unusual length magnified that effect. Also, connections between structural elements that could not resist the heated loads; and a structure not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
SLIDE OF MINOR FIRES ON NORTH PERIMETER
The north perimeter showed fires on only a few floors, but
SLIDE OF FIRE DAMAGE DRAWING NIST claims the fires were more extensive on the south side which was hit with burning debris.
SLIDE OF LOWER BUCKLING FLOORS
NEW NIST: a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder caused Floor 13 to collapse, floor failures cascaded to the 5th floor. This collapse weakened Column 79 over nine stories.
Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse.
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81).
SLIDE DRAWING OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE
Then, all of the columns east to west failed in the core of the building (58 through 78).
DETAIL SLIDE OF EAST PENTHOUSE COLLAPSE that reached the building's east penthouse.
Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
VIDEO SLIDE OF COLLAPSE OF NORTH FACE
That series of structural failures was mostly invisible, with east penthouses seen collapsing first, then around seven seconds of nothing visible on the north face.
SLIDE OF WINDOWS WITH SUNLIGHT THROUGH THEM
As evidence of the complete collapse of the penthouse and the structure during those seven seconds, NIST shows this picture of light shining through the windows right after the east penthouse disappeared from view.
FREE FALL COLLAPSE Diagram
IMPORTANT: NIST said the building's exterior facade fell slowly at first, then at approximately free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet).[62] The entire facade collapsed downward as a single unit.
SLIDE OF EXPLOSIVES SIMULATION
NIST also did a computer simulation of what an explosive demolition would have looked like. These diagrams of the damage they say it would have caused many more broken windows, much louder sounds, and a different pattern of destruction.
There are several other scientists who have proposed variations on the NIST Theory for Building 7: Arthur Scheuerman, and Ryan Mackey both focus on the long-span beams expanding, sagging and then contracting when the fire moved away and the long beams cooled; NIST focuses more on the building connections. The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, the University of Edinburg, and Arup have also issued their own scientific criticism of details of the NIST report.
NCSTAR1A (read it here: http://www.ctbuh.org/Publications/T...ISTWTC7/tabid/739/language/en-GB/Default.aspx)
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Is this word "important" going to make the video? If so, why? That is not an agreed-upon fact that this free-fall episode is "important", it is unsubstantiated opinion, and best described as a prejudice. No one has so far explained why a second or two of freefall 10 seconds into collapse progression would be indicative of intentional demolition, but argue against natural progressive collapse.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
This is incorrect.
1A pg 60 [pdf pg 102]
There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers.
This is misleading.
pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.
Incorrect.
1A pg 6 [pdf pg 48]
Only one truss system held up part of the atrium area. The other two were in the northwest and northeast parts of the core area.
Furthermore
1A pg 48 [pdf pg 90]
Neither the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs) nor the “strong” floors (Floors 5 and 7) played a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7. Neither did the Con Edison substation play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7.
Incorrect.
1Apg 19 [pdf pg 61]
Between 12:10 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., there were fires at the southwest corners of the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors. These fires grew large enough to break glass from nearby windows, but did not spread far before dying out. These fires might have also burned along the south sides of the floors, where they would not have been seen, due to limited visibility from smoke obscuration. It is possible that the fires on the 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors were limited by automatic sprinklers, whose water came from the storage tanks on the 47th floor. At any rate, after about 1:00 p.m., there was no evidence of fires on these floors on the east,
north, or west faces of the building.
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 118 [pdf pg 162]
It was not clear whether the smoke was coming from lower locations within WTC 7 or was from fires near WTC 7 whose smoke was being drawn into a low pressure area formed on the face due to the flow of the prevailing wind from the north around the building.
NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97]
The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.
Incorrect
NIST did not say "approximately", they clearly said "at gravitational acceleration". They measured it to within 1/10 of 1% [minutely faster than free fall due to margin of error]
They used only one scenario. They did not consider the possibility of thermite assisted removal of columns. You don't believe it's possible that some form of thermite was involved but you cannot deny that temperatures of 2800 to more than 3200oF occurred during the WTC event.
ETA: There was a sound that could have been some form of explosives just before the east penthouse fell: [at 0:11]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus&feature=player_embedded
In addition to the RJ Lee group confirming that iron melted and lead was vaporized, confirming temperatures of 2800 - 3180oF, the NY Police Museum has samples of molten concrete which melts at 3272 - 4572oF
http://www.archive.org/details/NewYorkPoliceMuseumWtcGunsMelted
http://www.weldcare.co.uk/app10.htm
This is effectively acknowledging that the NIST hypothesis is impossible because the fire they said started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier. There is no reason to have an alternate hypothesis if you accept the NIST hypothesis. You can't have it both ways.
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Thanks Oystein and Chris7 for your posts above,
Oystein, I'm keeping the word "important" because it is of central importance to Richard Gage, and it's important to people who are looking at this. I understand that you are saying it is not important from an engineering standpoint. Maybe I should clarify wshat I mean by important.
Chris7, if all of your corrections on our reportage of the Building 7 collapse are accurate, how could Richard Gage of all people be so far off the mark in the NIST summary he signed off on and helped to write? Everyone knows that I'm the new kid on the block and have made errors. I thought Richard had this stuff down.
Many things in this summary are setups for both of us to debate. For example, Richard agreed with Chris7 that the variations on the NIST collapse scenario proposed by other scientists shows major flaws or even fraud. I argued that with the perimeter walls standing to the very end, NIST did a good job of analyzing what may have happened inside and unviewable, and that there is room for alternative hypotheses like thermal contraction, which is part of the normal scientific process of offering competing ideas for available data.
Chris 7 I will pass this thread onto Richard Gage and see what he says. Thanks
Oystein, I'm keeping the word "important" because it is of central importance to Richard Gage, and it's important to people who are looking at this. I understand that you are saying it is not important from an engineering standpoint. Maybe I should clarify wshat I mean by important.
Chris7, if all of your corrections on our reportage of the Building 7 collapse are accurate, how could Richard Gage of all people be so far off the mark in the NIST summary he signed off on and helped to write? Everyone knows that I'm the new kid on the block and have made errors. I thought Richard had this stuff down.
Many things in this summary are setups for both of us to debate. For example, Richard agreed with Chris7 that the variations on the NIST collapse scenario proposed by other scientists shows major flaws or even fraud. I argued that with the perimeter walls standing to the very end, NIST did a good job of analyzing what may have happened inside and unviewable, and that there is room for alternative hypotheses like thermal contraction, which is part of the normal scientific process of offering competing ideas for available data.
Chris 7 I will pass this thread onto Richard Gage and see what he says. Thanks
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
What report is that? Is that Appendex L again?
And he wasn't speaking of 7WTC, he was talking about 1&2 WTC.
You keep missing the key point. I've made that point VERY obvious, so you don't keep missing it.
There is no sound there, or the people in the background would have reacted to it. A single explosive of causing a column failure would have been EXTREMELY loud. It's not audiable in the video, nor do the people around the camera hear it either.
Why do you insist on being wilfully ignorant?
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
If this was a real sound rather than wind, maybe it WAS the sound of the east Penthouse collapsing, a REAL explosion would be a lot LOT louder. We have various videos of WTC7 and none show any explosive detonation of any kind and this is all you have? At least I haven't heard claims of squibs in a while
Why do truthers have no idea what explosives actually sound like?
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
When you have your head up your rear, sounds are extremely muffled.....