• 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.

AE911Truth, physicists to debate Coast to coast

Steve001

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
1,789
I hope they do a through job of decimating the Truthers





World Trade Center destruction on 'Coast to Coast AM'


A highly anticipated debate between two members of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and two physicists is scheduled for August 21, 2010. The debate will air on the popular late night talk show Coast to Coast AM with host Ian Punnett between 10pm - 2am Pacific time.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and an architect for over twenty years, has delivered over 150 presentations in 17 countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and throughout the United States. He will be joined by Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen—a chemist and university teacher with expertise in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology.


More http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Con...Trade-Center-destruction-on-Coast-to-Coast-AM
 
Any idea who the two physicists are?

Who wants to lay odds on how much actual physics will be covered versus non scientific DRG regrugitation?

TAM:)
 
The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area, and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech, I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave
 
Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM:)
 
Dont let him talk over you. If he does, admonish him and talk over him

T.A.M. said:
Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

And be sure to ask poor Richard why he spices up his oratory with dramatic hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM:)

Dave. This would be a perfect opportunity, in public, to ask harrit why neither he nor jones have submitted their samples for independent analysis by an independent lab. They will likely answer that they have, but they havent. They submitted it to two other truther scientists. Corner him on how unscientific it is to not have ones result, as groundbreaking as they potentially are, not verified by independent labs.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM:)

...
Click to expand...

It's a long story, actually. Pop open a cool one and sit back for a second.

Gage initially wanted two whole teams on each side. Truthers on his initial team lineup were Gage, Kevin Ryan (Chem.), Michael Donly (P.E.), Niels Harrit (Chemistry), and Erik Lawyer (Firefighter). We were supposed to come up with an equal number of debaters on our side. That would have been a little hard - I didn't get positive responses from many I asked (Roberts, Mackey, Bazant, Romero etc.).

However, Ian Punnett of Coast-to-Coast AM came down against having 10 people arguing at once, and told us to limit partners to One Each.

Even then, Gage was still pleading for twice that, pummeling Punnett with demands to alternate between his chemist (Harrit) and his firefighter (Lawyer). We did have our own firefighter waiting in the wings. Had I chosen the firefighter, Gage pledged to choose Lawyer over Harrit. I decided to just go with my physicist colleague Kim Johnson, who has examined many 9/11 truth claims. Thus, Gage went with Harrit accordingly.

And that's how the Great Debate came to be between an architect and a chemist, and two physicists.

As to where Gage & Harrit will try to steer the conversation, Gage anted up with a huge list of 16 topics divided up for the four hours, with his team introducing ("framing") each and every topic, and with responses timed down to every single minute.

This prompted Punnett to tell Gage that he didn't tell Gage how to design buildings, then asked why Gage was telling C2C how to do their radio show.

FWIW, here's Gage's list of original topics. We have no intentions of letting Gage and Harrit do the steering.

  • Segment #1: 10 minutes – Introduction
    9/11 review, 2 airplanes - 3 WTC High-rises brought down,​
  • Segment #2: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Introduction & Fires
    Intro, No plan impact, etc., NIST Fire Simulation, Photo & Video Evidence

    Q: What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities
    that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer extensive damage
    and extensive fires leading to complete “collapse”?
    ​
  • Segment #3: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – In Free-fall
    Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

    Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?
    ​
  • Segment #4: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – FEMA Report
    Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.
    ​
  • Segment #5: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – NIST Report
    Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
    Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
    Whistleblowers fired

    Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
    Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
    ​
  • Segment #6: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Fires:
    “Normal office fires”
    No precedent
    extraordinary hypothesis
    ​
  • Segment #7: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples

    RJ Lee report (with vaporized lead, aluminosilicates); USGS Results,
    EPA WTC dust signature; (Gas) temperatures given by official reports,
    (solid) temperatures required to explain evidence
    ​
  • Segment #8: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses
    Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
    Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero
    ​
  • Segment #9: 10 minutes – Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
  • Segment #10: 10 minutes – WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
  • Segment #11: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction
    BBC, CNN, etc.
    ​
  • Segment #12: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers – Introduction
    The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns),
    Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling)
    Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first
    2/3 Free Fall
    ​
  • Segment #13: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report
    Destruction of evidence
    Test results compared to official hypothesis (Steel Temps, Floor tests, Fireproofing loss)
    UL involvement in investigation and in producing the WTC fire resistance plan
    No Analysis of Collapse
    Evidence omitted
    ​
  • Segment #14: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness
    Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions
    Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”
    Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)
    Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete​
  • Segment #15: 10 minutes
    Lateral Ejection
    Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
    Total Building Destruction​
  • Segment #16: 10 minutes – Overall Concluding Remarks
Click to expand...

Cheers, Dave
 
Segment #1 - the title alone tells me there will be no science involved. It will be the old "noone paid attention to wtc7 even though never before in hisotry had a skyscraper colapsed due to fires. Why was it not mentioned by the commission...blah blah blah.

Segment #2 - also no science likely, except some probability calculations. Once again, all speculation to gear up the audience....nothing of substance.

When i get home from clinic, ill address the rest.

TAM:)
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area, and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech, I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. As the two assemblies meet they do so floor-by-floor (one from above and one from below). According to Newton the top floor of the lower assembly will reciprocate exactly whatever kinetic energy the bottom floor of the upper assembly imparts on it. Both floors are shattered leaving 12 floors above and 96 below and so on and on until the top assembly is no longer able to impart a force sufficient to prevent collapse arrest.

How would you deal with that in the debate ?
 
As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.
 
twinstead said:
As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.
Click to expand...

No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
 
bill smith said:
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
Click to expand...

No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
Click to expand...

NO--only the one single lowest floor makes initial contact . Whatever force it brings to bear is EXACTLY reciprocated by the well-supported topmost lower floor.
 
bill smith said:
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
Click to expand...

So you're implying that the floor below should have held up the one above?

If that understanding of physics were true, a billiard ball on a pool table would not be able to move another ball(s).
 
Segment #5: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – NIST Report

Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
Whistleblowers fired

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
Click to expand...
Sorry to interject... but seriously? He wants to debate whether this happens at all?
epicfacepalmfacepalmdem.jpg


Anyway seems you'll an easy ride through this if these are the kinds of things he plans to discuss.
 
twinstead said:
No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
Click to expand...

Now you are behaving like an idiot savant (or is it bazant). You see you can't have a block above and an assembly of single floors below as you might think. It is either a block falling in a much larger and stronger block or it is an assembly of 13 single floors falling on a much larger and stronger assembly of 97 single floors. No mixing and matching I'm afraid.

PS. I was more interested in how Dave would have tackled this softball question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom