• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

4th Richard Gage-Dave Thomas Debate, June 28th 2012

DaveThomasNMSR

Muse
DaveThomasNMSR
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
877
I'll be debating Richard Gage on WMNF 88.5 FM in Tampa, Florida, at 10:00 AM EDT.

MF31426.jpg


You can listen live here . It will be archived as well.

Ideas? Suggestions? Where did Bill Smith go?
 
You did a great job debating over the 9/11 weekend. You showed respect for your listeners and talked with obvious awareness of them without getting entangled with Richard Gage. The latest data on Millette is in your hands, and is much more current than the stuff Gage says. And BTW he states incorrect information on that study. Be sure everyone knows the results were: NO THERMITE. He says UNKNOWN MYSTERY PRODUCT MILLETTE CAN'T IDENTIFY, which is technically true but misses the main point.

Ask him about the chris mohr YouTube rebuttals. He actually speaks somewhat highly of them and they may be a way to get Gage's blessings on one of his critics' work. I'll see if I can tune in!
 
chrismohr said:
You did a great job debating over the 9/11 weekend. You showed respect for your listeners and talked with obvious awareness of them without getting entangled with Richard Gage. The latest data on Millette is in your hands, and is much more current than the stuff Gage says. And BTW he states incorrect information on that study. Be sure everyone knows the results were: NO THERMITE. He says UNKNOWN MYSTERY PRODUCT MILLETTE CAN'T IDENTIFY, which is technically true but misses the main point.

Ask him about the chris mohr YouTube rebuttals. He actually speaks somewhat highly of them and they may be a way to get Gage's blessings on one of his critics' work. I'll see if I can tune in!
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris!

FWIW, here are links to the previous debates we've had:
Cheers, Dave
 
listening for debate, can't find it. Other subjects are being talked about...
 
I have to wonder, Why give Gage the attention?

By "debating" him you imply his arguement has some sort of credibility. Do you think this is true?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
As a side note.

In Gages last series of shows he had two gigs scheduled at AIA facilities. As we all know they did not endorse these shows.

The first show in Washington was attended by no Architects. The second show was cancelled with no explanation.

You might want to ask him why he uses the "AIA" after his name when it's clear he has no support of the organisation.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I'll be debating Richard Gage on WMNF 88.5 FM in Tampa, Florida, at 10:00 AM EDT.

[qimg]http://donationsstatic.ebay.com/extend/logos/MF31426.jpg[/qimg]

You can listen live here . It will be archived as well.

Ideas? Suggestions? Where did Bill Smith go?
Click to expand...

Cool Dave :cool:

Be sure to attack him on the iron-rich sphere canard, in terms of the depressed melting points of various metal mixtures, and the fact that the spheres mostly contain a lot of other stuff like Si... and of course that you can make them at home with a Bic lighter.

I also think one of the weakest points of the nanothermite claim is the sheer fact that Harrit's own XEDS show a relatively tiny amount of either Al or Fe, I think in red chip sample D there's more Si than Fe; and about 70% organic binder. So isn't it chemically impossible for a thermitic reaction to occur?

Ask him why no other thermite on the planet could work this way, but theirs magically does? have they suspended the laws of chemistry? ;)

Also ask him why he keeps evading the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 took much longer than his videos claim, and why AE911Truth avoids talking about the descent of the E mechanical penthouse, since this is directly relevant to the reasons of collapse.

And while you're at it, make sure to ask him how an explosive demolition could occur without any explosions as the building falls. It has never happened like that before, challenge his followers to find a youtube video which can demonstrate this occurrence.
Ask him why FDNY personnel are on record stating that they felt 7 was likely to collapse, and pulled the search and rescue efforts (which is a really big deal) by about 2pm on 9/11. Does he think FDNY are part of some conspiracy, or maybe is his theory wrong?

You might also mention that Femr2 has analyzed the video data and determined that the building facade (not the entire building, of course) may have fallen FASTER than freefall for up to 1 second. Ask him how explosives could make something fall faster than freefall! I'd like to hear him run away from that one... would be fun.

Make sure to point out that real CD's don't usually fall at freefall anyway, and neither did WTC 1 or 2, so it is a meaningless assertion to use it as some kind of 'proof'. Ask him if the scientific literature or industry literature on demolitions supports his claim, and ask him to cite such a paper in support of his claims.

That's all I got. Good luck and have fun. Keep on kicking the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight!
 
Here's a question that I'd like you to ask him.

No serious researcher, NONE, NOT ONE:

1. presents his/her case on YouTube or the internet or on radio talk shows.

2. just asks questions, and draws no conclusions.

3. asks the public to decide for themselves.


What they do is:

1. prepare their arguments very, very carefully, consult with experts in the pertinent fields & then submit them to peer-reviewed publications. Then they bring their results to panels of experts within the field.

Why hasn't Gage presented to the MOST prestigious panel of structural engineers that he can find, rather than college campuses and public meetings?

Is the answer that he cannot get in front of any prestigious panel of structural engineers because those experts know what a load of crock he is selling?
(Answer: absolutely. Ask the AIA.)

2. Serious researchers draw conclusions. As many as they can. If they have no conclusions to present, they keep quiet until they can present conclusions.

3. Why would a serious researcher ask amateurs (the public) what they think? Would he bring discussions of high energy physics or cutting edge medical treatments to the public & ask what they think? Or would he/she bring them to the American Physical Society & JAMA?
 
tfk said:
Here's a question that I'd like you to ask him.

No serious researcher, NONE, NOT ONE:

1. presents his/her case on YouTube or the internet or on radio talk shows.

2. just asks questions, and draws no conclusions.

3. asks the public to decide for themselves.


What they do is:

1. prepare their arguments very, very carefully, consult with experts in the pertinent fields & then submit them to peer-reviewed publications. Then they bring their results to panels of experts within the field.

Why hasn't Gage presented to the MOST prestigious panel of structural engineers that he can find, rather than college campuses and public meetings?

Is the answer that he cannot get in front of any prestigious panel of structural engineers because those experts know what a load of crock he is selling?
(Answer: absolutely. Ask the AIA.)

2. Serious researchers draw conclusions. As many as they can. If they have no conclusions to present, they keep quiet until they can present conclusions.

3. Why would a serious researcher ask amateurs (the public) what they think? Would he bring discussions of high energy physics or cutting edge medical treatments to the public & ask what they think? Or would he/she bring them to the American Physical Society & JAMA?
Click to expand...

And then there are serious besmirchers who use psuedonyms and post nonsense on forums trying to defend a clearly discredited theory for how the WTC buildings collapsed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
And then there are serious besmirchers who use psuedonyms and post nonsense on forums trying to defend a clearly discredited theory for how the WTC buildings collapsed.
Click to expand...

In what peer reviewed journal will your "missing jolt" "paper" show up? When will it be published and where can I get a copy?

How about ANY truther "paper"? When will one get into a real (read not vanity journal which will publish your laundry list for $700)
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I'll be debating Richard Gage on WMNF 88.5 FM in Tampa, Florida, at 10:00 AM EDT.

[qimg]http://donationsstatic.ebay.com/extend/logos/MF31426.jpg[/qimg]

You can listen live here . It will be archived as well.

Ideas? Suggestions? Where did Bill Smith go?
Click to expand...

Good luck, Dave.

Could you please ask him when his petition, which is addressed to the US Congress, will be presented to the US Congress?
 
While I applaud your bravery, at this point I think any attempt to engage the Truther folk is a waste of life. But if you find it fun, why not? And either way, best of luck.

What I'd like to know is what Gage thinks about the future of his organization. It's clear now that they are not attracting the kind of construction professionals that have a larger professional voice in this matter. It is clear from the growth of AE9/11T that all the recruitment of new names on the list is being done by Gage and not through even a small number of convicted professional recruiting new names. It's clear that the idea of a demolition on 9/11 has not made a deeper impact on professional knowledge among construction professionals. In fact, of all the names on the AE9/11T list, only Gage and his inner circle appear involved in recruitment and production of knowledge about the so-called 9/11 demolition. So even the larger number of names on his petition has made no larger professional impact.

What's he going to do next? Does he even have a plan now that it's clear he's made no noticeable professional impact?
 
Last edited:
There's a promo page.

Radioactivity: Live Call-In (Thursday) Jun 28 2012 10:00AM Add to Calendar

This Thursday (June 28th) at 10:06AM EDT WMNF presents a one hour debate between 9/11 "Truther" Richard Gage and skeptic Dave Thomas on the theory that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center were brought down by deliberately placed explosives on 9/11/01.
Click to expand...

They allow comments!
HINT-HINT
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Ideas? Suggestions? Where did Bill Smith go?
Click to expand...



Here's mine from a thread a couple of weeks ago:


Horatius said:
tntruther said:
I'd like people from this forum to offer scientific questions for Richard Gage that I can present to him in Nashville on July 3rd.
Click to expand...



Here's a serious question I'd like to hear him answer, from a thread I started last year:


Horatius said:
I notice that none of this is actually related to Gage's work as an architect. It's all pretty much just "raising awareness". Can anyone point to any aspect of Gage's presentations that are directly attributable to Richard Gage's professional work as an architect? I don't believe I've ever seen him do or say anything that wasn't copied from someone else's work.
Click to expand...


The "evidence" that Richard Gage presents is, so far as I can tell, taken entirely from other peoples' work. Those other people are not architects or engineers. So I'd like to know what Dickie Gage has actually done.

This question really has two sides*:

1) What new evidence or analysis has Gage produced? Has he pointed out any aspects of the events of 9/11 that support the CD hypothesis, which no one before him ever pointed out?

2) Has he ever specifically refuted any evidence or analysis from earlier, untrained people? That is, has he ever said to a layman, "Sure, you might think that Feature X was important, but based on my experience, I can tell you that it's not a feature that could distinguish a CD from a fire-induced collapse"?

As it stands now, no one has ever been able to point out any new work Gage has done that directly relates to the science or engineering of the collapses. This leads us to the unlikely situation that untrained laypeople did two amazing things: 1) They spotted all the relevant evidence, and conducted all the relevant analyses, so that there was nothing new for Gage to do; and 2) In doing the above, they made no mistakes at all; they went down no blind alleys, they found no red herrings, they made no calculation errors.

If that was possible, then why do we need A&E9/11 at all? If laypeople can do all the needed work, flawlessly, then why should the endorsement of A&E9/11 carry any weight?




*It's interesting to note that, in the case of the NIST reports, we can say "Yes" to both these questions.
Click to expand...
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
They allow comments!
HINT-HINT
Click to expand...

From the comments:

The bottom 2/3s of WTC 1&2 were undamaged and it is inconceivable that the steel beams would not have put up enough resistance to slow the collapse or cause the toppling over of the top 1/3, as opposed to the demolition-style near-perfect collapse that occurred in less than 15 seconds, right before everyone's eyes.
Click to expand...

[Obligatory Princess Bride reference.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom