Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Simple Question #16 plus C7 comment
Hi all,
As I plow through the Gage/Mohr debate, here's another Gage quote re the iron microspheres: "If you had thousands of cutter charges throughout the columns and beams in the building, under explosive conditions that [iron microspheres] would be dispersed." Looking at Wikipedia, it seems that the terms "cutter charge" and "shaped charge" are interchangeable. It also seems to me that both require cutting through the beams and columns to create some kind of diagonal-shaped "nest" to direct most of the explosive energy in one direction. Which means a staggering amount of noise and burnt metal smells, especially at the perimeter columns which were located right next to the most desirable office spaces. Am I right, or can a cutter charge just be wrapped diagonally around a column or beam without putting torch to steel?
My comments re C7: I've personally met Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan. I've had email correspondences with Tom Sullivan the CD guy, Niels Harrit and David Chandler. I haven't asked around about the "money" question, and I've had no contact with Steven Jones, but in the course of my conversations I've learned that the only person I know who makes money from the 911 Truth movement is Richard Gage. My guess is that he is making around half what he made as an architect. Everyone else is either living off their own retirement income or still working a day job. The money they make promoting their cause usually amounts to speaking stipends and travel expenses for the bigger names like Kevin Ryan.
What I get from everyone, and I mean everyone, is total sincerity of belief and no motivation of personal financial gain. I completely disagree with Richard and his 911 friends and I want passionately to publicly rebut their claims. I am convinced they are wrong and people researching this could benefit from what I'm putting together... but I personally guarantee that Christopher7 and the rest are NOT in it for the money. If that were true, by now I would have smelled a rat, and I don't.
Hi all,
As I plow through the Gage/Mohr debate, here's another Gage quote re the iron microspheres: "If you had thousands of cutter charges throughout the columns and beams in the building, under explosive conditions that [iron microspheres] would be dispersed." Looking at Wikipedia, it seems that the terms "cutter charge" and "shaped charge" are interchangeable. It also seems to me that both require cutting through the beams and columns to create some kind of diagonal-shaped "nest" to direct most of the explosive energy in one direction. Which means a staggering amount of noise and burnt metal smells, especially at the perimeter columns which were located right next to the most desirable office spaces. Am I right, or can a cutter charge just be wrapped diagonally around a column or beam without putting torch to steel?
My comments re C7: I've personally met Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan. I've had email correspondences with Tom Sullivan the CD guy, Niels Harrit and David Chandler. I haven't asked around about the "money" question, and I've had no contact with Steven Jones, but in the course of my conversations I've learned that the only person I know who makes money from the 911 Truth movement is Richard Gage. My guess is that he is making around half what he made as an architect. Everyone else is either living off their own retirement income or still working a day job. The money they make promoting their cause usually amounts to speaking stipends and travel expenses for the bigger names like Kevin Ryan.
What I get from everyone, and I mean everyone, is total sincerity of belief and no motivation of personal financial gain. I completely disagree with Richard and his 911 friends and I want passionately to publicly rebut their claims. I am convinced they are wrong and people researching this could benefit from what I'm putting together... but I personally guarantee that Christopher7 and the rest are NOT in it for the money. If that were true, by now I would have smelled a rat, and I don't.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Seems reasonable to me.
When I hear some of these outlandish claims, I often wonder, "What are they thinking?" This helps answer that question to some extent.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Did you miss this Chris? You claim the fire was not large, so show me a larger one.
A shaped charge is a specially designed explosive that creates a convergent shock wave (see Munroe Effect). This is then used to form an explosive jet -- almost always, the explosive is coated with a layer of copper or some similar, highly ductile metal -- and it is this jet, traveling at many times the speed of sound, that does the cutting.
You can certainly make shaped charges that cut through unprepared steel. This is what the military does all the time, destroying armored vehicles. However, it requires a lot more explosive than if you prepared the structure ahead of time. It is also less reliable, because as the jet has to destroy more structure, there are more possibilities for the jet to be disrupted or diverted, and the demolitioneers would only compensate with even more explosives.
The other problem is that the stand-off distance of the shaped charge is critical -- a supersonic jet experiences turbulence and will rapidly dissipate if it is formed too far away. On the other hand, it requires a little bit of clearance to form in the first place. A good rule of thumb (from pure aeronautics; I am not a demolitions expert nor would I provide such information on a public channel) is to provide a standoff distance of no less than two and no more than four times the diameter of the jet. This consideration is important if you're trying to plant charges covertly... you almost always must strip away exterior cladding, fireproofing, plumbing, etc., and you cannot simply tuck your explosives away wherever they'd be least obvious. Your shaped charges will be big, bulky things, impossible to conceal, guaranteed to attract attention.
Using such charges will not create an abundance of microspheres, either. Some creation is inevitable I suppose (talk to EMRTC about that one) but the shaped charge works through kinetic effects, not by melting. The copper layer is not molten at all, rather it is extruded, though the jet itself is so high energy that it is neither truly solid nor liquid, being best described as a viscoplastic. As a result, what you will find instead are several unmistakable, tell-tale signatures, none of which are seen in any sample from Ground Zero:
- Steel fractures showing extremely high rate-of-strain, which is positively detectable through crystallography, and would not be caused by any other phenomenon in the collapse
- Significant deposits of copper on and around the cut surfaces
- Infusion of copper into the steel grain structure
- Secondary evidence of high-speed jets elsewhere in the structure, e.g. copper spray onto floor pans or into adjacent steel columns
- Nontrivial steel shrapnel, also with a unique strain signature, both embedded elsewhere in the structure and detectable in the dust
Not to mention, as you suggested, noise and smells. Oh yeah, these things are LOUD. But microspheres? Not definitive. Show me evidence of the above, and you've got something. Naturally, there is none.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The "iron microspheres" infers that Mr. Gage is talking about a nano-thermite cutter charge. This is speculation and is, of course, arguable. I do not wish to argue the point because that is a waste of time. Suffice it to say that Mr. Gage has offered a possibility that is rejected by the opposition.
Thank you. Likewise I do not detect ill intent on your part either.
You have not dealt with the fact that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end of WTC 7 before 4:00 p.m. and therefore did not cause the floor beams on floor 13 to expand and push a girder off its seat at 5:20 p.m.
This means that the NIST final report on WTC 7 does not explain the collapse and a new investigation is needed. Do you agree?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Simple Question #17
Thanks again Ryan.
I have heard it said that the FBI did not consider bin Laden a suspect because there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the 911 attacks. But... he was #1 on their Most Wanted List from 1998-2011. Does anyone know what was being claimed here?
Thanks again Ryan.
I have heard it said that the FBI did not consider bin Laden a suspect because there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the 911 attacks. But... he was #1 on their Most Wanted List from 1998-2011. Does anyone know what was being claimed here?
The best thing is to give you this link from Mike Williams website.
Its one of the dumber CT claims. See...
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11
Another small piece of info is that Rex Tomb also said that he may of been taken out of context. Either way its been pinned quite easy.
And I had an e-mail chat with Paul Sheridan one time. He's super crazy!
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
He was indicted for the African embassy bombings by a grand jury. This is the charge that got him on the list. After that, there isn't a need to indict for more crimes unless captured and put on trial.
On the home page for the most wanted terrorists, there's this:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
C7 investigation...
Hi C7,
Several people have quibbles with the NIST Report, esp the Building 7 part. More than one person I have read has suggested that thermal expansion followed by thermal shrinking of the beams may have caused the collapse. I did deal with this already, but to repeat: If fires happened on the 12th floor, they could have caused thermal expansion of the beams, followed by sagging due to resistance from the structurally relevant perimeter walls. Fires go out on the 12th floor. Expanded and sagging extra-long beams then begin to contract, retaining their sagged shape because now they are cooler and therefore they are becoming stronger and can hold their shape. In this scenario, the absence of fire and lowering of the tempertaure actually pulls a girder off its seat due to the third phase of re-contraction.
No, this is not the kind of thing that requires a whole new investigation. It's a quibble, and other scientists have presented this hypothesis. Because NIST was looking for a cause for the collapse so that they could come up with new safety recommendations, this minor variation on their likely collapse scenario is not enough to justify subpoenaing hundreds of people.
The strongest arguments I have heard in favor of a new investigation actually come from the facts that 1) Bush/Cheney did everything in their power not to have an investigation at all and 2) so many people who were empaneled in these investigations expressed disgust with the way it was carried out. As one 911 activist said, there was no such controversey over the Challenger investigation. At this political level I am actually torn, and I read and considered seriously your many quotes from the 911 commission folks. I have gone from opposing an investigation to being torn. I wish the scientific evidence for CD were more compelling... at this point the evidence just doesn't impress me.
Hi C7,
Several people have quibbles with the NIST Report, esp the Building 7 part. More than one person I have read has suggested that thermal expansion followed by thermal shrinking of the beams may have caused the collapse. I did deal with this already, but to repeat: If fires happened on the 12th floor, they could have caused thermal expansion of the beams, followed by sagging due to resistance from the structurally relevant perimeter walls. Fires go out on the 12th floor. Expanded and sagging extra-long beams then begin to contract, retaining their sagged shape because now they are cooler and therefore they are becoming stronger and can hold their shape. In this scenario, the absence of fire and lowering of the tempertaure actually pulls a girder off its seat due to the third phase of re-contraction.
No, this is not the kind of thing that requires a whole new investigation. It's a quibble, and other scientists have presented this hypothesis. Because NIST was looking for a cause for the collapse so that they could come up with new safety recommendations, this minor variation on their likely collapse scenario is not enough to justify subpoenaing hundreds of people.
The strongest arguments I have heard in favor of a new investigation actually come from the facts that 1) Bush/Cheney did everything in their power not to have an investigation at all and 2) so many people who were empaneled in these investigations expressed disgust with the way it was carried out. As one 911 activist said, there was no such controversey over the Challenger investigation. At this political level I am actually torn, and I read and considered seriously your many quotes from the 911 commission folks. I have gone from opposing an investigation to being torn. I wish the scientific evidence for CD were more compelling... at this point the evidence just doesn't impress me.
ozeco41
Philosopher
At that level I have often questioned the political tactics of those who want to investigate the Bush Cheney et al actions. All the truthers we see here want to tie whatever political concerns they may legitimately hold onto the big technical lies. There was no demolition at the WTC and anyone claiming otherwise in 2011 is near certainly playing games. I question that any person who possesses the intelligence to make coherent statements and claims could be unaware that there is a strong body of professional opinion which says "no demolition" and, even stronger that "there is no case for demolition". So why tie claims for an investigation of the high level political actions of 9/11 to a dead set loser, an obvious loser, technical claim such as demolition at WTC and the equivalent claims for Pentagon and Shanksville?
It is a funny delusion that can pretend that such opinions either do not exist or are wrong. I am aware that there are persons posting who find Gage a pleasant person to speak to and a person who seems genuine.
Yet he is reported from the debate as saying 'Gage said in our debate, "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires." ' That is not the untruth of a deluded person. That is an outright lie coming from any qualified architect or structural engineer - (and a few more professions.) It cannot be genuine error for any professional involved in 9/11 WTC debate.
Yeah. About that.
As I already pointed out to the "activist" in question, the Rogers Commission was just as fractured, politically handicapped, and controversial as any other blue-ribbon investigation. Personally I don't see anything the least bit unusual in the way the 9/11 Commission was resisted, assembled, executed, or reported. That's just the way these things go.
Which is why it is wise to do the following: Don't limit yourself to only one source, and look for credible alternatives. There are plenty of other investigations to read about (perhaps the best known by Lawrence Wright but lots of others), and I encourage you to do so. And while there are minor discrepancies and differences of opinion in the scientific community, not even the wildest outlier forces any reevaluation at all of what caused the event.
That's the proper way to evaluate the 9/11 Commission -- not on political grounds and personal bias, but on the completeness, plausibility, and accuracy of its conclusions, particularly as compared to consensus. On these grounds it holds up rather well.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
They were wrong. The NIST hypothesis is as follows:
NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64]
Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79.
The unsupported girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor (which, as noted in Section 1.2.3, was much thicker and stronger). Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support, and as a consequence, the column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation.
Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to descend. The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent.
* * * * *
In the NIST hypothesis, the collapse began when the fire on floor 12 expanded the floor beams on floor 13. But the fire had burned out in that area before 4:00 p.m. The fire on floor 13 burned out in that area about 4:10 p.m.
NCSTAR 1A pg 21
13th Floor
Around 3:41 p.m., the fire had turned the northeast corner and was one-fourth of the way across the north face.
Yet scientists who worked together with NIST did a metallurgic analysis of the steel, didn't they? Or did they just do that with WTC7?
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
bump for sunstealer. i deleted a couple of double posts in the original.
thermate? i say this because the reaction produces iron and then you have sulfur in the mix, it will create a fe-s eutectic and also produce FeS. now sisson put FeS powder on his steel and heated it to 1100C. thats not enough to melt the FeS but it does create a Fe - FeS eutectic at 985C. and his experiment also produced "similar" results as the wtc steel. so thermate on steel, which produces FeS, would also produce similar results as the wtc 7 steel.
similar even at 150C more than what they said the wtc 7 steel experienced. could they get similar results at 950C? nope, because the Fe - FeS eutectic is 985C. how high can we go and for how long or short and we still see "similar" results?
solid state diffusion occurs on cooling as far as i can read. the austenite stays solid for many more degrees than 950C.
incorrect how?
there still has to be that much sulfur in the eutectic if the 950C is correct.
via solid state diffusion? please explain since the paper states:
"Sulfidation in the solid state into the austenite grains occurs much slower and is observed on cooling as a gradient of precipitated sulfides and oxides or oxidized sulfides with many of these particles containing silicon."
they say on cooling...
which begs the question, how much sulfur would one need to "corrode" 15.9mm of a36 steel in just 8 days!!
but you do need that much sulfur in the "slag" at 950 like they state for there to be a "eutectic"? thats what im talking about. and a continuous supply of sulfur too.
and that is exactly what type of experiment needs to be done to show that a "eutectic" can form from office material to form the "eutectic" that can attack steel like the wtc samples!!!!
considering some parts of that beam are 95% gone (and some totally gone), how you can tell that is amazing!! they didnt show what parts were scanned. they just said some of the most corroded parts so im assuming the parts that were almost gone. hats off to ya man!
all he was doing was playing with eutectics and steel. he wasnt trying to figure out how an office/debris fire could cause a eutectic to form to attack steel. at least he knows what needs to be done.
at least he understands that one needs to look at the office/debris fire that is suppose to cause the eutectic in the first place. remember, the eutectic was novel phenomenon and they only expected to see "twisting and bending but not holes."
hummmmmm...office/debris fire.....office materials.....8 days......15.9mm of a36 steel gone....
wouldnt we all.
and you can prove it happened in days?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Senenmut v Sunstealer
argumentum ad nauseam
diversion and distraction
Please relate to the debate
The fire had gone out on floor 12.
The NIST hypothesis is hogwash.
argumentum ad nauseam
diversion and distraction
Please relate to the debate
The fire had gone out on floor 12.
The NIST hypothesis is hogwash.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Still can't name a larger office fire?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
What training and qualifications do you have that enables you to make that judgement?
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
im sure youve read this before. if it happened just like prof Astaneh - Asl said it did then i think you would understand why im debating sunstealer. he observed this steel only 8 days after the attack. from what he says, the steel lost 15.mm then buckled as it was attached to the column. this guy actually looked at forensic evidence!!!! not just some computer model!!
from the article:
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/s...clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm