Gage's next debate

[DGM]

Funny thing about Gage. He goes on and on about how obvious the signs of demolition are yet, it took a professor of theology (DRG) to point it out to him.

 

[Christopher7]

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat says that thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction is part of the NIST theory of thermal expansion in their minds.

Then David Scott is simply wrong because that is clearly not the case.

Did you read the quotes from the final report that I posted? It is crystal clear that NIST says thermal expansion triggered the collapse. I can post more quotes to the same effect if you need more. NIST never mentioned thermal contraction.

ETA:

Thermal contraction is significant as an improvement on the NIST expansion theory, but it doesn't render NIST's analysis worthless.

It most certainly is. They knew the fire on floor 12 had burned out yet they claim that it caused the beams on floor 13 to expand over an hour after it had burned out. That's fraud.

Chris7, I am baffled at why you hammer away at some NIST detail

Get serious. This is not a "detail". How can you say something so absurd?

* * * * *
ETA: I just read the CTBUH response to NIST again and Dave Scott did NOT say: "thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction is part of the NIST theory of thermal expansion in their minds"

He made this statement:
Pg 4 - Fire engineers are well aware that the effects of thermal expansion and thermal contraction (during the cooling phase) are often substantially more significant than the effects of heat reducing the strength of materials.

And asked these questions:

Pg 6​

Did NIST review and evaluate any cooling cycle effects?” If cooling had started after the bolts connecting to Column 79 had failed, would the connection be stable?​

It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle?​

Pg 7

Did the floors fail on the heating or cooling cycle, and theoretically​

which was worse?​

 

[beachnut]

ETA:
It most certainly is. They knew the fire on floor 12 had burned out yet they claim that it caused the beams on floor 13 to expand over an hour after it had burned out. That's fraud.

Get serious. This is not a "detail". How can you say something so absurd?

* * * * *
ETA: ... CTBUH response to NIST again and Dave Scott did NOT say: "thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction is part of the NIST theory of thermal expansion in their minds"

He made this statement:
Pg 4 - Fire engineers are well aware that the effects of thermal expansion and thermal contraction (during the cooling phase) are often substantially more significant than the effects of heat reducing the strength of materials.

...
Did NIST review and evaluate any cooling cycle effects?” If cooling had started after the bolts connecting to Column 79 had failed, would the connection be stable?

It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle?​

...

Did the floors fail on the heating or cooling cycle, and theoretically which was worse? ​

​

It means two independent source think fire destroyed WTC 7, and out of thousands of engineer not one agrees with the inside job delusions you have. Yes the cooling cycle would be caused by the fire, after the heats peak. Fire did it, and what did it in your theory? Gage is preaching explosives did it, and he has yet to offer up a source for silent explosives which leave no blast effects, or thermite which leaves zero products. Good luck, 10 years will pass soon and 911 truth is relegated to fringe Enterprise bilking money from those who can't figure out 911, and are dumb enough to buy DVDs, books and donate to Gage's European Talking Tour, and Pub Crawl. Damn, why can't I spew lies and make money?

 

[dafydd]

why can't I spew lies and make money?

You're too honest and upright.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Funny thing about Gage. He goes on and on about how obvious the signs of demolition are yet, it took a professor of theology (DRG) to point it out to him.

A theology professor telling an architect. Keep in mind titular professions are paramount to whether a truther deems you"credible" or not. A non-architect - in their world - is not overruled by other professions or by lower academic stages of the same profession.

 

[chrismohr]

One more try with Chris7

Chris 7 Here's what Dave Scott said about thermal expansion in October 2008 on the CTBUH blog thread that got shut down after several 9/11 Truth researchers began attacking him and others on the council as well as NIST: "No, the Council does not cast doubt on what you call NIST’s thermal expansion fairy tale. We believe that the failure was caused by thermal expansion but perhaps the critical point of time was as the expanded beam returns back to its original position. This is part of the thermal expansion theory."

My characterization of what he said was denied by you when you claimed, "I just read the CTBUH response to NIST again and Dave Scott did NOT say: "thermal expansion followed by thermal contraction is part of the NIST theory of thermal expansion in their minds."

Well I think I did an OK job of paraphrasing him.

But more importantly, I am still struggling to understand your over-the-top objection to NIST's thermal expansion theory (you call it fraudulent). I think what you are saying is that because the steel beams on floor 12 weren't still expanding in a raging fire at 5:20 pm, that the thermal expansion theory is outright fraud. I think you are also saying that no variation on that theory can be considered, and any attempt to add thermal contraction as an improvement on the NIST theory is total avoidance of NIST's utter failure to provide a credible collapse sequence. Am I right? Please tell me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying.

So one more try: Darwin wrote Origin of Species in the 19th century and it is still the dominant theory used by evolutionary biologists. However, the theory of random natural selection as proposed by Darwin has evolved in some of its details. I'm going by memory here, but I think around a decade or so ago an evolutionary biologist got a Nobel Prize for creating a mathematical model explaining how evolutionary changes appear to happen faster than can be accounted for by chance when a species is under environmental stress.

Do you think Darwin is a fraud because his theory did not explain rapid evolutionary development in times of environmental stress? Do you think the people who gave that guy a Nobel Prize for adding a new wrinkle to Darwin's theory are ignoring the terrible fraud of Darwin who so miserably failed to explain this important aspect of evolution?

Can you see a way in which this analogy applies to your accusations of NIST being fraudulent? Like the evolution theory (which is still the best core theory we have to explain why species are what they are), there was room for modification and improvement on the original theory while still embracing the main theory. Likewise, other scientists embraced the core NIST theory and suggested some modifications. Do you still think the original theory is a fraud based on these suggested modifications, and if so, why? Do you think that if I embrace the suggested thermal contraction addendum to the NIST theory, that I am avoiding admitting that the NIST Report is a fraud?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris 7 Here's what Dave Scott said about thermal expansion in October 2008 on the CTBUH blog thread that got shut down after several 9/11 Truth researchers began attacking him and others on the council as well as NIST: "No, the Council does not cast doubt on what you call NIST’s thermal expansion fairy tale. We believe that the failure was caused by thermal expansion but perhaps the critical point of time was as the expanded beam returns back to its original position. This is part of the thermal expansion theory."

Dave Scott recognized that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79 so he came up with his own theory. The problem is, that's not the NIST theory. The NIST theory does NOT mention thermal contraction. They clearly say that the collapse started when the beams expanded and PUSHED the girder off it's seat.

The NIST theory does NOT explain the collapse. It does not matter what Dave's theory is. He cannot change what NIST said in their Final report.

They have a photo showing that the fire had burned out. They were informed by the CTUBH and AE911Truth that the fire was past it's peak / had burned out. They ignored all three and said the fire was still burning. That's fraud.

I think what you are saying is that because the steel beams on floor 12 weren't still expanding in a raging fire at 5:20 pm, that the thermal expansion theory is outright fraud.

Correct.
NIST said that the fire was still burning in the area of the collapse when it was not. That's fraud

NIST said that the beams were expanding at 5:20 p.m. but obviously they were not. That's fraud

I think you are also saying that no variation on that theory can be considered

A variation can be considered but that does not change the NIST theory.

and any attempt to add thermal contraction as an improvement on the NIST theory is total avoidance of NIST's utter failure to provide a credible collapse sequence.

Correct

Can you see a way in which this analogy applies to your accusations of NIST being fraudulent?

No. People here come up with these similes/analogies in an attempt to double talk around clear facts.

NIST knew their theory was impossible because they knew that the fire had burned out.

Do you still think the original theory is a fraud based on these suggested modifications

No, it's a fraud because they knew it was impossible.

Do you think that if I embrace the suggested thermal contraction addendum to the NIST theory, that I am avoiding admitting that the NIST Report is a fraud?

Yes, embracing another theory does NOT change the NIST theory. The NIST theory, as they state it, does not explain the collapse. You are ignoring this fact.

 

[Oystein]

...
Yes, embracing another theory does NOT change the NIST theory. The NIST theory, as they state it, does not explain the collapse. You are ignoring this fact.

This "other" theory is 99.5% the NIST theory, with one obvious additional step that follows logically from the rest.

Darwin wasn't 100% correct, he was missing a few steps, maybe even some he could have come up with himself, given the state of knowledge he had in his lifetime. Still he was not a fraud.
[ETA]
Nota bene: Darwin's theory did NOT explain evolution! Having published before Mendel, he had no concept of how hereditary information was combined and passed on through sexual reproduction. He believed, like other biologists of his time, that genetic information was continuous and that traits mixed in a fashion that would tend towards average properties. He realized this problem (iirc, he made a mention of this within Origins even, but I'd have to look that up), which would make new traits deteriorate quickly and preclude new species from forming. The solution to the problem is the discrete nature of genetic information: A gene is passed on fully intact, or not at all, and thus new traits, if beneficial, tend to survice fully intact. This addition to Darwin's theory came decades later. Hence the statement at the beginning of this para: Darwin's theory did NOT explain evolution!. Has anybody changed "Origins"? No. Was "Origins" a fraud? No. Did someone change Darwins's theory? Yes!
[/ETA]


No one can change the FINAL report, that's correct. That's why they call it "final". But everybody can build upon that final report and improve the theory layed out in the final report. The designation "final" qualifies the report, not the theory. The theory wasn't final, the report was.

 

[Christopher7]

No one can change the FINAL report, that's correct. That's why they call it "final". But everybody can build upon that final report and improve the theory layed out in the final report. The designation "final" qualifies the report, not the theory. The theory wasn't final, the report was.

As far as NIST is concerned, that is the final theory.

 

[Oystein]

As far as NIST is concerned, that is the final theory.

Do you have an official and current NIST statement, issued after other researchers offered their additional thoughts, that this is so? Does NIST state that the theory as per the final report is unchangeable and perpetual truth, engraved in stone, gospel? That would be quite foolish.

If no such statement exists, then your claim is foolish.

 

[ozeco41]

Do you have an official and current NIST statement, issued after other researchers offered their additional thoughts, that this is so? Does NIST state that the theory as per the final report is unchangeable and perpetual truth, engraved in stone, gospel? That would be quite foolish.

If no such statement exists, then your claim is foolish.

In the overall context the issue is that thermally induced movement of steel members seems to have initiated the WTC7 collapse. It is a reasonable explanation. In explaining WTC7 collapse it matters not either:
1) When this thermal movement occurred either in absolute time or time relative to the heating flames; OR
2) Which direction of thermal induced movement actually triggered the event.

Since it doesn't matter in terms of explaining WTC7 collapse we see the objective switch to a demand of 100% valid for ever perfection from NIST. So the objective suddenly becomes "prove NIST wrong" with the criterion that any minor error means that the whole NIST effort is wrong. Only a committed truther could put that view forward and keep a straight face. C7 is not alone in this pursuit of perfection as a false goal. Nor in the trick of switching objectives to suit an argument.

Chrismohr's explanation by analogy to Darwin is spot on.

 

[NoahFence]

As far as NIST is concerned, that is the final theory.

Yawn.

Present a better, more complete theory or shut up.

 

[dafydd]

Yawn.

Present a better, more complete theory or shut up.

That is all I ask of any truther,but theories they have none.

 

[Seymour Butz]

ETA:
It most certainly is. They knew the fire on floor 12 had burned out yet they claim that it caused the beams on floor 13 to expand over an hour after it had burned out. That's fraud.

Another truther just ignoring how things actually work, and ignorant of what the NIST report actually says.

NIST says that the flooring around col 79 failed at a temp of around 400C.

So as long as the gas temp right there is above 400C, then the flooring will continue to heat and expand, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRE IS ACTUALLY BURING RIGHT THERE.

NIST estimates gas temps of 800-1000C at that location.

The rational would admit that this would continue to heat steel.

My guess is that you will dispute this.

 

[Jono]

You are both ignoring the fact that NIST said the collapse occurred WHEN the beams expanded!

So, if the devil is in the detail of the collapse occurring slightly after the expansion had happend, as a result of creep (thank you Animal, I had forgotten the term in english), it makes next to no difference whatsoever. You should also consider how expansion can occur unstable variations as a directly continued post-fire process for a brief time, if the temperature is there.

Certainly, for argument's sake, this bit of corrective distinction might very well change a handful of words for any such report and have its own weight of merit for future references, but it provides nothing of weight to any 'alternative' collapse-scenario (you know, like TNT or super-duper thermite that is a non-match with the samples, hence Harrit argues it thus has to be somekind of hitherto unknown thermite-concoction thereof).

They knew the fire on floor 12 had burned out yet they claim that it caused the beams on floor 13 to expand over an hour after it had burned out. That's fraud.

Well worded differently, it would either way be directly related to the thermal changes of the beams, if not for anything else than expansion-to-contraction. As I said, at best this would be a ridiculously minor detail and one which wouldn't impact or change the bulk of the established and observed sequences. It all comes back to the same column and the same old fire and the almost the same expansion causing the collapse of structural integrity.

The NIST theory does NOT explain the collapse.

It doesn't? Hmm, is that because of that rather, in the whole of it all, minor detail again?

Have you heard of the Civic Tower of Pavia? After having stood for about a millenium, it instantly collapsed. Of course, as I noted before with my personal recollection, this happend as an accumulative effect of stress and damages, allthough to my knowledge no one has been able to specify it more exactly (so I guess it never happend then, or thermite was at it again huh?)
But... once more, using your logic, it couldn't have had an effect on the collapse, as any such accumulation would've happend, for most parts, long before the collapse. How on earth can you defend such logic infront of your rationality? If I had tried, someone would've arrested my brain for vagrancy.

For somewhat relevant information on more long-term effects of creep on tall buildings, just to get a rough but helpful insight into the principles (imo) I recommend reading;
*'Assessment of long-term stability of masonry structures: experimental research, non-destructive techniques and theoretical modelling'.

 

[Jono]

Yes, THANK YOU Jono, the story will appear in my final draft. It's homey and utterly logical.

Yes I think I did hit the spot with calling it 'pastoral', it also sounded a lot more respectful than some of the other english (or american slangs) terms I've heard used for ones rural musings.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7 and Chris Mohr and Another Dust Test???

Well Chris, I checked with you and apparently I DID understand your views on NIST being fraudulent because they didn't include thermal contraction and because we can consider ONLY what they said about expansion. We've reached a dead end here.

I say science moves forward with other scientists correcting and tweaking original theories. Specifically with NIST, the only reason they called it a final report is because it's a government agency. Barring some drastic new revelation, they have new standards and technologies to work on. They completed their mandate and will be spending taxpayer money on other projects. Other scientists will continue to look at the details of the 9/11 NIST Reports and refine them.

I can't change the core assumptions you operate under. They seem incredibly rigid to me, like making a big deal out of the term Final Report for NIST. Neither of us is a scientist, but I've never heard a real scientist who agrees with your fundamental approach to the scientific process. EVERYTHING is subject to change, refinement, even to being discarded... including the NIST Report if CD could be proven.

Fer instance... I'm in communication with a top AE911 Truth guy who will look into the possibility of turning over a dust sample to someone like RJ Lee! If that happens and they identify thermites or explosives of any kind in the dust, then guess what... the whole core NIST theory gets called into question by mainstream scientists. Niels Harritt will be the Galileo of 9/11. There will be chain of custody arguments (NIST has already told me that any independent dust experiment would fail that test), but such a result would create something real and tangible to look at. I would certainly push for a very serious second look and drastically change my tune.

 

[NoahFence]

Lets hope these dust samples, if turned over for anaylisis, don't have thermites planted in them by truthers. I would be shocked if they didn't manipulate it for their own benefit.

($$)

 

[R.Mackey]

There is no Truther with the ability to secure or manufacture nanothermite.

If there were, they'd also be capable of writing more convincing nonsense papers than they have so far...

What will happen instead is either (a) nitpicking over the most trivial details, things that they don't understand but "look suspicious," i.e. iron microspheres; or (b) a claim that the sample tested wasn't the right one / was tampered with / was manipulated by the testing agency, etc. I don't think this will shut any of them up, they've been given innumerable good reasons to do so and have not availed themselves of the opportunity. But who knows.

 

[chrismohr]

There is no Truther with the ability to secure or manufacture nanothermite.

If there were, they'd also be capable of writing more convincing nonsense papers than they have so far...

What will happen instead is either (a) nitpicking over the most trivial details, things that they don't understand but "look suspicious," i.e. iron microspheres; or (b) a claim that the sample tested wasn't the right one / was tampered with / was manipulated by the testing agency, etc. I don't think this will shut any of them up, they've been given innumerable good reasons to do so and have not availed themselves of the opportunity. But who knows.

I'm not so sure about that Ryan. I think Kevin Ryan might have made or used a sample of nanos but I'm not sure. As for them planting thermites in the dust, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Knowing them personally, I am not at all convinced that they would do this... I wouldn't 100% vouch for them but I've seen no evidence of Gage's group planting false evidence. And there may be ways for that to be discovered if they did. For example, RJ Lee may well still have some dust samples of their own from 2003, and NIST or someone may have samples. At the least I would push hard for giving them enough of the benefit of the doubt to support another test. If thermites come out, I would push to look for an independent study of another dust sample with a completely different chain of custody. If that tests positive too we'll all owe our favorite Truth activist a drink!

But... again... one baby step at a time here...

I have asked that they submit a dust sample for independent testing and one guy from AE911 said he'll look into it. That's all so far. Probably premature for me to even mention it.