• 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.

Gage's next debate

Thanks again Ryan. Because this free-fall argument is so central to Richard Gage's beliefs, my Building 7 epilogue will have to cover this pretty thoroughly. Clearly a three-sentence simple statement won't do.
Chris, this does make sense to me. Another analogy Ryan gave me once was like a stick you lean on, and it holds up until it breaks. And of course we all are talking about near free-fall due to air resistance in any kind of collapse.
Ryan, I do have one response to something you wrote:
..."firefighters... saw clearly, with their own eyes, how the structure's integrity deteriorated as it burned... Not even the craziest Truther has suggested there were bombs detonated during this time period. But this is tantamount to accepting that fire can cause structural degradation and, yes, collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper. In essense, they aren't denying the fact of collapse, they're merely denying the style of collapse."
Richard Gage has not suggested bombs during the fire, but others definitely have. Someone once told me with a straight face that she believed that "they" tried a controlled demolition early in the day (explosive sounds of eyewitnesses, remember?) which created structural problems etc. but then they had to go back in during the fire and finish the job, which of course they did flawlessly. Now that was a Babylon soliloquy!!!
 
Chris, good job on the debate with Gage. I know how slippery he can be.

Anyway, check out this YouTube video:


It clearly shows that parts of a collapsing structure, pulled on by othert parts of the same structure, can actually fall faster than objects in true freefall.

And note the complete absence of explosives!

Good luck, Dave Thomas
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Chris, good job on the debate with Gage. I know how slippery he can be.

Anyway, check out this YouTube video:


It clearly shows that parts of a collapsing structure, pulled on by othert parts of the same structure, can actually fall faster than objects in true freefall.

And note the complete absence of explosives!

Good luck, Dave Thomas
Click to expand...
Dave,
The YouTube link is not available. Can you just direct me with some keywords?
Thanks
Chris
 
A couple days ago Chris wrote:

"The nano-thermite chips were iron oxide, aluminum silicate and organic materials. There was no significant amount of the toxic components that they were looking for."

Well, chemist Kevin Ryan recently published an article stating that the first responders are getting sick these days because they breathed in all this horrible thermitic dust. He listed all kinds of thermitic toxic chemicals he thought were part of this deadly soup of hazardous materials.

Chris, have you read this article? Which is it? Benign thermitic materials or hazmat?

Us two Chrisses have one thing in common... we voluntarily surround ourselves with our adversaries: me with truthers and him with, well, us. Chris I admire your spunk, as many truthers admire mine.
 
chrismohr said:
Dave,
The YouTube link is not available. Can you just direct me with some keywords?
Thanks
Chris
Click to expand...

That's odd, it's working for me.

Anyway, if you seach YouTube for 'Falling Faster Than g', or Google Videos for the same, it comes up #1 on either search.

Good luck, Dave
 
chrismohr said:
Chris, this does make sense to me. Another analogy Ryan gave me once was like a stick you lean on, and it holds up until it breaks.
Click to expand...
An analogy does not depict what actually happened. We can look at Figure 12-63 and see the frame twisting and buckling in an irregular manner. Then looking at the screen captures we can see that this buckling is occurring during the free fall acceleration. Buckling columns provide resistance. Because of the irregular manner of the buckling exterior columns, they do not all buckle to the point of failure at the same time. The vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame transfers the resistance of the columns in a lesser stage of bending. So, as Shyam Sunder said [when NIST was denying the existence of free fall] "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

And of course we all are talking about near free-fall due to air resistance in any kind of collapse.
Click to expand...
No, we are talking about free fall. Air resistance is negligible - too small to be considered. The NIST measurement was within 1/10th of 1% of free fall acceleration which is negligible, i.e. there was no measurable resistance.

All attempts to talk around the free fall acceleration ignore the physical reality that Shyam Sunder clearly stated: "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
 
Next Request

Hi gang,

In my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, a scientist friend of mine said that the side by side spectographic analyses Richard showed on a slide re thermitic dust showed two different chemical signatures. Anyone know about this. Anyone have a link to the pay phone explosion sound (someone said it was dubbed in; I would need the original to compare it to back to back if this is true).

Anyone willing to slog through the 3 1/2 hour debate and pick out inaccurate things Richard said that I missed... I will have one last chance to rebut it all in about four weeks. Link to debate is on Richard's AE911 Truth website... I'm still not allowed to create links on JREF, sorry.
 
Christopher7 said:
Buckling columns provide resistance.
Click to expand...


Off course. Buckling columns DO provide any resistance, but it's negligible resistance, i.e. too small to be considered.

BTW
Depending on the circumstance, even intact columns may provide negligible resistance. It happens when columns are subjected to loads too many times greater than their capacity.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Hi Chris, Now on to the second thought experiment. "That's just one column," you're thinking, "and we added weight until it collapsed. WTC 7 didn't add weight." That's correct.
Click to expand...


But in a sense, weight was added on columns instantaneously........with the odd arrangement of transfer beams/girders/trusses over the substation, a failure of one column would have caused load to transfer immediately. Unlike ordinary structures where the load is shared by multiple other members, transfer beams tend to concentrate loads, so it could have been quite possible for a column to be well below its ultimate yield load and instantly be multiple times over its ultimate yield load due to the failure of an adjacent structural member.

Regarding the supposed 2.5 or so seconds of "free fall speed" the failure of columns low in the structure and the resulting load shifting and instant failure of adjacent columns would have the effect of kicking the legs out from a table, there would be no resistance.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi gang,

In my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, a scientist friend of mine said that the side by side spectographic analyses Richard showed on a slide re thermitic dust showed two different chemical signatures. Anyone know about this. Anyone have a link to the pay phone explosion sound (someone said it was dubbed in; I would need the original to compare it to back to back if this is true).

Anyone willing to slog through the 3 1/2 hour debate and pick out inaccurate things Richard said that I missed... I will have one last chance to rebut it all in about four weeks. Link to debate is on Richard's AE911 Truth website... I'm still not allowed to create links on JREF, sorry.
Click to expand...

Did they up the minimum post count? I thought it was 15.

You can pretty much assume when Gages mouth is moving he's telling a lie or some sort of half truth. He's a carnie, snake oil salesman, con man, etc. This is his job. He has to "believe" in these things to put food on his plate. He's not trying to convince the masses, he's looking for the few rubes in the crowd that will allow him to continue doing this for a living. Another shining example of this is Alex Jones. At least he does it as an entertainer, half legitimizing himself.

You should have asked him while you had him live if he planned to use the event as an opportunity to extend his apologies to the families, friends, and associates of those who were wrongly accused of committing these heinous acts.
 
Last edited:
In the final report NIST said the buckled columns provided "negligible" resistance. This gives the impression that there was some resistance when there was none. If the resistance is too small to be measured, it is for all intents and purposes, zero.

The use of the word "negligible" is an obfuscation of the fact that the buckling columns did provide resistance as Shyam Sunder stated: "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

"There was structural resistance" and "negligible resistance" are not the same.

ETA: Somepeople refuse to accept the obvious:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
In the final report NIST said the buckled columns provided "negligible" resistance. This gives the impression that there was some resistance when there was none. If the resistance is too small to be measured, it is for all intents and purposes, zero.

The use of the word "negligible" is an obfuscation of the fact that the buckling columns did provide resistance as Shyam Sunder stated: "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

"There was structural resistance" and "negligible resistance" are not the same.
Click to expand...


Two different moments.
Two different situations.

Where's the problem?

Christopher7 said:
ETA: Somepeople refuse to accept the obvious:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
Click to expand...


Yes.
A free fall time would be an object that has absolutely nothing below it. No structural components, no bodies, no air.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
A couple days ago Chris wrote:

"The nano-thermite chips were iron oxide, aluminum silicate and organic materials. There was no significant amount of the toxic components that they were looking for."

Well, chemist Kevin Ryan recently published an article stating that the first responders are getting sick these days because they breathed in all this horrible thermitic dust. He listed all kinds of thermitic toxic chemicals he thought were part of this deadly soup of hazardous materials.

Chris, have you read this article? Which is it? Benign thermitic materials or hazmat?
Click to expand...
I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

Us two Chrisses have one thing in common... we voluntarily surround ourselves with our adversaries: me with truthers and him with, well, us. Chris I admire your spunk, as many truthers admire mine.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I also appreciate your arguing the data and not attacking or insulting your opponent.
 
Two different moments
Same collapse

No structural components
Air is not a factor in this case
 
Christopher7 said:
Two different moments
Same collapse
Click to expand...


Same collapse but two different phases, two different stages.
At each stage the structure was in a different configuration.

Stage 1: The beginning of the collapse. There was still some significant resistance offered by the structure below.

Stage 2: There was no significant resistance offered by 7/8-storey structure.

Christopher7 said:
No structural components
Air is not a factor in this case
Click to expand...


If you say literally free-fall acceleration and literally no resistance you should consider the air influence.

If you say almost free-fall acceleration, approximately free fall acceleration (or whatever) and negligible resistance you can ignore the air influence.

Which one do you refer?

If you answer "the second one", then you cannot say it means necessarily no structural componets.
 
Last edited:
Chris wrote: I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

I have read Kevin Ryan's paper and it's clear he says that thermitics are terribly toxic. Nothing more to ask him. My question would be to you, since you assert that breathing in unexploded thermites would not be the kind of health hazard the RJ Lee study would be concerned about. If you agree with Kevin Ryan (and I for one would NOT want to inhale nanothermites, thermates and their byproducts) then why didn't RJ Lee find these deadly toxins?

Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
 
chrismohr said:
Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
Click to expand...

Hi Chris, welcome to the forums! The short answer to your question is: no. We've hammered through the Harrit data pretty thoroughly, and it's pretty well decided that they were looking at two different materials and claiming they were the same thing.

Of course the bigger problem is that we're looking at heterogeneous materials. In other words, analyzing two different spots on the same material will show two different spectra. All this leads back to an astounding level of incompetence on the part of Jones, Harrit et al in their paper. One of the posters here, Sunstealer, was finally able to figure out all of the things they did wrong. You'll want to read the posts in this thread, with kudos to ElMondoHummus, who provides excellent summaries of the various issues.
 
chrismohr said:
Chris wrote: I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

I have read Kevin Ryan's paper and it's clear he says that thermitics are terribly toxic. Nothing more to ask him. My question would be to you, since you assert that breathing in unexploded thermites would not be the kind of health hazard the RJ Lee study would be concerned about.
Click to expand...

I made no such "assertion". I noted that I don't see any of the toxins that RJ Lee was looking for in the spectrum analysis. The red/gray chips are but one of many of constituents of the dust and since they do not contain the toxins the RJ Lee Group were looking for they would not draw their attention IMO.


If you agree with Kevin Ryan (and I for one would NOT want to inhale nanothermites, thermates and their byproducts) then why didn't RJ Lee find these deadly toxins?
Click to expand...
Kevin Ryan did not say that the red/gray chips are toxic. He said the extreme heat they created released benzene and other toxins from plastic and polystyrene in the dust.

Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
Click to expand...
You can look at the spectrographs of the unignited chips and see for yourself that there are none of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for.

* * * * * * * * * *

Getting back to the free fall acceleration, NIST said that the upper portion of the building moved down as a single unit at that the acceleration was 9.81 m/s2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity. This is within 1/10 of 1% of the acceleration of gravity for New York City which is 9.802 m/s2 and that is as close as a measurement can be [actually minutely faster than FFA]. The resistance from the supporting structure was as "negligible"[too small to be considered] as the air. There was NO measurable resistance.

As Shyam Sunder rightly said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom