Gage's next debate

[R.Mackey]

I ran such a calculation in my whitepaper, around page 100 if I recall correctly. I won't rule it out completely but I don't think this is likely. The "flying" beams start with velocities consistent with descending debris, suggesting they were bounced or toppled out of the stack instead of being blasted out by gas effects.

This is also consistent with the fact that big beams flew the farthest. If it was blast, we expect smaller (but not too small, think fist-sized) chunks to fly the farthest.

Ultimately this kind of thing is mere trivia. Only lunatics with scare agendas would call attention to such a pointless detail.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Well, the tire blowout isn't quite a correct analogy, because in that case the air is static, and it's a static pressure straining the tire until it bursts.

In the case of the towers, there's a combination of static and dynamic pressure. The collapsing tower is not a very good container and will only support a static pressure of a fraction of a PSI. There are also "winds," in some cases equivalent in terms of dynamic pressure to winds of hurricane strength.

Just like wind doesn't all blow the same direction, we don't expect all the windows in the tower to experience the same force from static + dynamic pressure. Also some windows are stronger than others. Some are weakened from the impact and fires, some had people trying to open them. Some will get hit by heavy chunks of debris.

In contrast, an explosive or series of explosives triggers a pressure wave. Different phenomenon. Speed > Mach 1. The strength of this wave at any point depends on distance and on whether the wave reflects off of hard surfaces (like columns) to get there. Explosives would cause many windows to fail, and preferentially close to the site of the explosive.

This is not what we saw, and Gage is an idiot.

I brought this up a few times in the past, dealing with complaints from such luminaries as Truthseeker1234 and Turbofan. It's amazing how few Truthers, even those who claim to be pilots, understand the concept of pressure.

So what you are saying is that the squibs prove it was not a controlled demolition.

I was always suspicious of them because I couldnt see the point. If the plane impact demolished 80 perimeter and internal columns, the what was the point of demolishing a few columns down below.

How do you explain the explosions at the upper half of the plant room level when a series of explosions, swept across the floor.? It was either air pressure in the ducts (the ducts only existed in the upper part of the floor) or a series of explosives cleverly placed in the ducts.

Tell me, would you debate Richard if you had the opportunity? Did you notice that there was much more applause for Richard than there was for Chris. I am sure that will be featured prominently in the made for TV special. Doesn't that prove that Richard won.!

 

[LightningTeg]

Mohr was probably as good as someone not completley familiar with the details as can get. Gage was just a bunch of rambling BS. He had holes in his argument that he obviously handwaved away multiple times

 

[riptowtan]

Wow. So Gage is now claiming nanothermite can be engineered to result in "massive explosions." My understanding is that the nanothermite that was discussed in that scientific paper would be used as an igniter and that the actual explosion would have to be a conventional explosive like RDX. Is this correct? I thought Mohr did a great job with the debate.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I think Mohr did very well, but once again, the only thing really proved was that a debate format designed for debating subjective political opinions is totally inadequate for debating technical issues and claims of fact. Gage keeps counting how many "architects and engineers" have signed his petition, but it seems he has yet to sign up even one who can put together a valid scientific argument.

 

[JamesB]

Oh nanothermite can do anything. One thing Gage kept on repeating during this debate was that because thermite has a high ignition temperature it could have survived the plane crash and the fires. He needs to actually read their nanothermite paper though, because the substance they supposedly found has an ignition point well below that of thermite, and easily within the range of normal office fires.

 

[chrismohr]

OK gang I finally got into JREF. Did any of you see Richard Gage's take on my debate last week? Check out his website and see what you think. Chris Mohr

 

[HannibalGroup]

Off topic - but has Gage shaved his head?

 

[ozeco41]

OK gang I finally got into JREF. Did any of you see Richard Gage's take on my debate last week? Check out his website and see what you think. Chris Mohr

Greetings Chris.

I am a civil/structural engineer and a military (reserve service) engineer with training in demolition.

I have followed the progress of your engagement with Gage but at a distance - after many years observing the idiocies of 9/11 truthers I lack the energy and patience to keep following the details.

However I have read the AE911Truth report of the debate. It frustrates and angers me to see the gross distortions that the report spews.

Take one example - that of "free fall'. To any competent engineer free fall as part of the collapse of a building such as WTC1, 2 & 7 is simply expected and a non-event. NIST was correct to ignore it but the report makes the usual snide digs etc.

These people may be lacking some intelligence but even allowing for that the simple fact that free fall is a none event could not escape their limited consciousness. So they must be simply dishonest.

I admire your patience and tolerance in the conduct of this exercise. Outright attacking will not persuade them But they are either stupid or deliberately committed to dishonesty. I do not accept the third alternate of "obsessed" however it is dressed up.

So best wishes and commendation. I'm glad it was you not me.

Eric C (ozeco41)

 

[Telltale Tom]

OK gang I finally got into JREF. Did any of you see Richard Gage's take on my debate last week? Check out his website and see what you think. Chris Mohr

Congratulations Chris !

I think you did well. But sadly for you, the official feedback from the truth movement is that you lost the debate and Richard won. More of the undecided went with Richard rather than you.

Where did you think that you were strongest, and which part of Richard's argument did you think were strongest

 

[Animal]

But they are either stupid or deliberately committed to dishonesty. I do not accept the third alternate of "obsessed" however it is dressed up.

So best wishes and commendation. I'm glad it was you not me.

Eric C (ozeco41)

In Gage's case, he is deliberately committed to earning a paycheck from the gullible, willfully ignorant, and terminally stupid.

 

[ergo]

Take one example - that of "free fall'. To any competent engineer free fall as part of the collapse of a building such as WTC1, 2 & 7 is simply expected and a non-event.

How so? I've never heard this claim before.

 

[chrismohr]

Yes, it's just his "new look." Theory still the same tho.

 

[grandmastershek]

Gage retorted "They are engineers and we are engineers...

Gage is an engineer now? And of course there is money to be made.

A DVD will be created in the coming months of the event from the high-definition video footage shot by a three-camera film crew led by Ken Jenkins, video director for the AE911Truth DVD’s 9/11: Blueprint for Truth and the SF Press Conference. We hope to air the WTC 7 show on local PBS-TV stations. Stand by to order your copy from our online store in April or May.

Some of my favorite buffoon moments.

Gage noted that the scale provided a significant “jolt” to the weight and slowed it down quite significantly as the weight met structural resistance – something that didn’t happen in the North or South towers since they accelerated down nearly at free-fall – without slowing at all

Yeah 66%...no resistance.

Gage also wondered why the scale didn’t pulverize to powder or issue patterned explosive ejections of pulverized pieces in a symmetrical arrangement sending 98% of the scale’s fragmented components outside of its perimeter.

Funny how AE911Truth unwittingly showed just prior to that that Gage was playing strawman.

Mohr: “It was a simple demonstration of the power of gravitational momentum and it would be impossible to replicate the actual conditions that existed on 9/11.”

 

[chrismohr]

Congratulations Chris !

I think you did well. But sadly for you, the official feedback from the truth movement is that you lost the debate and Richard won. More of the undecided went with Richard rather than you.

Where did you think that you were strongest, and which part of Richard's argument did you think were strongest

First, some of you may want to check out Richard's AE911Truth sites for his take on our March 6 debate.

I think I came across as more confident and calm. In the video you'll see that I also enumerated all 103 reasons why I believe natural collapse has the better science behind it my Powerpoint. That really helped hit it home.

I didn't catch all the implications of Richard's assertions, and frankly I am weaker at chemistry than at physics. Unfortunately, in any debate among nonscientists like me 'n Gage in front of an audience of nonscientists, the debate is reduced to who has the best narrative. I had a hard time creating a simple narrative for the complex free-fall collapse of Bldg 7 for 2.25 seconds compared to Richard's "Only controlled demolition could possibly explain this!!" That's simple, strong, and compelling, even though it's flat out wrong. On the other hand, the scale demonstration is simple and powerful, as were some of my statements about gravity gravity gravity.

 

[ozeco41]

Take one example - that of "free fall'. To any competent engineer free fall as part of the collapse of a building such as WTC1, 2 & 7 is simply expected and a non-event. NIST was correct to ignore it but the report makes the usual snide digs etc...

How so? I've never heard this claim before.

I find that hard to believe ergo.

However the simple fact is that "free fall" does not mean "demolition". Free fall can arise from many mechanism which can occur within a collapse scenario. The only reason "free fall" gets a lot of attention on forums such as this is that the truth movement tries to claim that "free fall" only occurs with demolition. That claim is false.

 

[ozeco41]

...I didn't catch all the implications of Richard's assertions, and frankly I am weaker at chemistry than at physics. Unfortunately, in any debate among nonscientists like me 'n Gage in front of an audience of nonscientists, the debate is reduced to who has the best narrative. I had a hard time creating a simple narrative for the complex free-fall collapse of Bldg 7 for 2.25 seconds compared to Richard's "Only controlled demolition could possibly explain this!!" That's simple, strong, and compelling, even though it's flat out wrong. On the other hand, the scale demonstration is simple and powerful, as were some of my statements about gravity gravity gravity.

You were taking on a committed liar in front of an audience committed to believing lies.

...and most of Gages lies are "lies by inference" where you would not "...catch all the implications of Richard's assertions..."

I commend your courage in going into the lions den. also your generosity to Gage in statements such as "...even though it's flat out wrong." It is not only flat out wrong it must also be a deliberate lie given the number of times Gage has been exposed to the truth.

 

[ergo]

I find that hard to believe ergo.

However the simple fact is that "free fall" does not mean "demolition". Free fall can arise from many mechanism which can occur within a collapse scenario. The only reason "free fall" gets a lot of attention on forums such as this is that the truth movement tries to claim that "free fall" only occurs with demolition. That claim is false.

Free fall of a portion of building through another portion of building indicates that the latter presents no resistance. In a structure where the damage has occurred above where the free fall occurs this means that resistance has been removed in some way. Since resistance cannot be globally removed in steel-framed structures by fires the existence of free fall is a serious problem in explaining a building's collapse. So, no, I haven't heard anyone ever say that it's "expected" and is a "non-issue". In fact, I believe 9/11 bedunkers spent the first eight years of debate trying to argue that free fall never occurred. Now, according to ozeco, it's a "non-issue". Why the change?

 

[ergo]

Fwiw, Chris, I thought you spoke very well. I have only listened to the first 30 minutes. Like many here, hearing the same arguments over and over gets tiresome. Unfortunately there was nothing in your presentation in that part of the debate that deviated from the standard bedunker canards, but you do have a good speaking voice, and it sounds like it was a very good effort.

 

[ozeco41]

Free fall of a portion of building through another portion of building indicates that the latter presents no resistance....

Even this "truism" could be misinterpreted by a determined truther....

...In a structure where the damage has occurred above where the free fall occurs this means that resistance has been removed in some way....

...you are already building your strawman.

Since resistance cannot be globally removed in steel-framed structures by fires the existence of free fall is a serious problem in explaining a building's collapse...

Strawman fully active...

Meanwhile, back on the topic I raised:

So, no, I haven't heard anyone ever say that it's "expected" and is a "non-issue"....

I still don't believe you but will allow that you are probably trying a bit of narrow pedantry...

...In fact, I believe 9/11 bedunkers spent the first eight years of debate trying to argue that free fall never occurred....

Cannot be true seeing as the word "bedunker" did not exist in those early days of debate. You invented the word as an insult only recently and lost the play when people refused to be insulted and turned the tables on you when they took it as a label with some measure of pride...

Now, according to ozeco, it's a "non-issue". Why the change?

...always has been a non issue. I haven't changed. And I don't fall for your switch of the alleged subject of change.

Summary. "free fall" does not mean "demolition" and the fact that you don't accept it is your problem.