• 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

NoahFence said:
The surface temp. of the pile was over 1,300 degrees? Why didn't the first responders melt or die from severe burns?

First responders were there within a matter of minutes and if I recall correctly, stayed for months.
Click to expand...
hotspotscompositrm5.jpg
 
chrismohr said:
CHRIS COMMENT: I suggested in the debate that the iron microspheres probably came from the 1972-73 welders. In welding the steel parts of the building together, the workers brought the steel up to very high temperatures with their torches and white-hot steel sprayed all over the place. Thus, microspheres everywhere.
Click to expand...

Chris,

A few days ago I noted that your comment is just speculation but that post has been buried in the discussion so I am posting the comment again with my rebuttal and asking you for a response.

It is not known how many microspheres are created by welding or how many would be left after cleanup.

The RJ Lee Group said the iron spheres were created during the collapse.

RJ Lee 2003 report pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf


Do you have any comment on my rebuttal?
 
DGM said:
So how many pixels (how big is that in real life at 6,500 and 12,500 feet altitude) in the study image showed temps of 1300 degrees? You didn't read the study, did you?
Click to expand...
Strange question. I could not know what the surface temperatures were without the study.

The point is: Even if the cars in the basement levels caught on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
The point is: Even if the cars in the basement levels caught on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]
Click to expand...
So what would?
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Strange question. I could not know what the surface temperatures were without the study.

The point is: Even if the cars in the basement levels caught on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]
Click to expand...


Was the entire mass of eight stories of debris heated to 1376oF? Are you sure?
 
Christopher7 said:
The RJ Lee Group said the iron spheres were created during the collapse.

RJ Lee 2003 report pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf


Do you have any comment on my rebuttal?
Click to expand...

Chris, take a look at page 2 of the Report (page 3 pdf), section 5.0 (1) and following. That makes it pretty clear that the WTC Event, as used in the report, includes the collapse and the subsequent fires, as does the last paragraph of page 9 (page 10 pdf) and many other sections and references throughout the report. But this belongs in one of the pre-existing threads on the minutiae of the dust particles and pulverization discussed in the R.J. Lee Report. See mod-box below.
 
Folks, this seems to be getting far astray from the thread's subject. If you wish to discuss the minutiae of the dust and pulverized particles and the R.J. Lee Report, that should be done in one of the perfectly cromulent already-existing threads on that subject. This thread is about the latest Gage debate (and perhaps the next one, if there is a next one).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
LashL said:
Chris, take a look at page 2 of the Report (page 3 pdf), section 5.0 (1) and following. That makes it pretty clear that the WTC Event, as used in the report, includes the collapse and the subsequent fires, as does the last paragraph of page 9 (page 10 pdf) and many other sections and references throughout the report. But this belongs in one of the pre-existing threads on the minutiae of the dust particles and pulverization discussed in the R.J. Lee Report. See mod-box below.
Click to expand...
My question concerns Chris Mohr's suggestion during the debate that the iron spheres in the RJ Lee report were created by welder's torches during the construction.

You are right that the discussion about the dust in the debris pile is off topic but my question to Chris Mohr is specific to the debate.

The referral to;
RJ Lee 2003 report pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.

is in rebuttal to his explanation for the presence of the iron spheres.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
My question concerns Chris Mohr's suggestion during the debate that the iron spheres in the RJ Lee report were created by welder's torches during the construction.

You are right that he stuff about the dust in the debris pile is off topic but my question to Chris Mohr is specific to the debate.

The referral to;
RJ Lee 2003 report pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.

is in rebuttal to his explanation for the presence of the iron spheres.
Click to expand...


See the mod-box above. You raised that 60+ posts ago and it immediately led to a derail into the minutiae that is properly the subject matter of other existing threads, so please take it to one of those threads. The other member whom you're addressing can find it there and respond there as well.
 
LashL said:
See the mod-box above. You raised that 60+ posts ago and it immediately led to a derail into the minutiae that is properly the subject matter of other existing threads, so please take it to one of those threads. The other member whom you're addressing can find it there and respond there as well.
Click to expand...
10-4
The discussion about the debris pile has run its course so I will not respond to posts concerning that and wait for a response from Chris Mohr on my rebuttal to his explanation for the origin of the iron spheres.
 
Christopher7 said:
Quite the contrary, those are measurements of the surface temperatures.
Click to expand...

Um... Why would they need NASA's ARIVIS to take simple surface temperature readings? Surely there is faster and more economical ways to take the temperature of an area that's right in front of them? Just sayin...

ETA: Sorry LashL.
 
NoahFence said:
Cars that are made of aluminum which can easily account for the "molten metal" at the scene. Since there were no reports of molten metal prior to the collapses, is this not a viable theory?
Click to expand...

Just to nitpick, most cars are not made from aluminum (Audi having an exception). While the amount is increasing, it is still rare to find vehicles with more than 10% aluminum - usually engine blocks, rims and now front/rear bumpers.

However, there would be plenty of vehicles that would have caught fire (witnessed by pics) and the aluminum could easily have melted. A hundred punds per vehicle would still be a substantial amount of aluminum.
 
Gage Debate Update and Microspheres too

Hi Christopher7 and all,

Richard Gage and I have agreed to do two five-minute video "Epilogues" each, one each for the Twin Towers and Building 7. This will not be inserted into the debate, but will be a chance for each of us to do post-debate commentary and catch up on what we missed first time around.

Christopher7, your posts have been helpful. I take my time looking at things before jumping into rebuttal mode. Here are some things I've found in the RJ Lee report regarding the iron microspheres:

The conf lagrat ion a c t ivat ed proc e s s e s that caus ed ma t e r ial s to form into
sphe r i ca l pa r t i c l e s s u c h as me ta l s ( e .g. , Fe , Zn , Pb ) and sphe r i ca l o r ve s i cula r
s i l i cat e s or f ly ash.

Sorry for the spacing problems in this cut and paste, but they never said that normal office fires could not have produced temperatures high enough to cause this.

Further down, we read that

Pa r t i c l e s o f ma t e r ia l s tha t had b e en m od i f i ed by expo s u r e to h igh
t empe ratur e , such as spher i ca l pa r t i c l e s of i r on and s i l i cat e s , ar e common
in WTC Du s t be caus e of th e f i r e that ac compani ed t h e WTC Event.

Again, they quietly assume that normal office fire temperatures would have been able to produce these spheres. Next passage makes it explicit:

Cons ide r ing the high t emp e ratur e s r eached dur ing the de s t ruc t ion of
the WTC, the fol lowing thr e e type s of combus t i on produc t s would be
expe c t ed t o be pr e s ent in WTC Du s t . The s e produc t s a r e :
• Ve s i c u la r c a rbona c eous par t i c l e s pr ima r i l y f rom p las t i c s
• I ron - r i ch s phe r e s f rom i ron -bear ing bui lding compon ent s or con t ent s
• High t empe ratur e aluminos i l i cat e f rom bui lding mat e r ial s


You may be right that iron microspheres couldn't have been created by steel-melting acetelyne torches in 1972 (though I still think that is a reasonable hypothesis, with or without the RJ Lee study). But it sure looks to me like this study is awfully calm about the iron microspheres. The authors clearly expect iron microspheres to be a natural byproduct of this kind of office fire. Why is that? I would expect them to say, "Iron microspheres can only be created with 2800 degree temperatures, and the fires in the WTC buildings never got over 1800 degrees. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?" Or some scientific-sounding version of this.

It's worth mentioning, too, that they identified all kinds of plastics, asbestos, other hazardous materials, iron microspheres etc, but they never suggested that they found any kinds of thermites, explosive residues, or anything that would offer solid support for a controlled demolition theory. Since they were especially sensitive about searching for environmentally hazardous materials, wouldn't one expect that they would have found such deadly things as thermates or nanothermitic dust, both of which would be extremely hazardous to breathe and therefore be of great interest to the authors of this study?

Help me out here buddy.
 
Playing Devil's Advocate

OK friends,

The weakest moment in my March 6 Mohr/Gage debate was explaining the 2.25 seconds of free-fall collapse in Building 7. It may have been a curtain-fall collapse of the outside perimeter, but those are most common in masonry walls. Since there were 58 steel perimeter columns offering structural support to the outside of Building 7, it doesn't seem logical to assert that the interior collapsed and therefore the perimeter walls had no support.

A collapse, yes, absolutely. Totally free fall for 8 or 9 stories with strong steel supports right in the perimeter walls? I'm searching for a short, simple narrative that can really nail this. NIST does not think it's important, they just studied the probable collapse sequence up to its start and then they say gravity took care of the actual collapse from there. The best help I've gotten so far has been from Ryan Mackey, who mentioned that one interior support column eight stories in length remained attached and helped actually drag the perimeter wall down during that 2.25 seconds.

The Chris Mohr 911 Prize will be awarded for the best explanation. I'll even mail you a $9.11 money order for your pains if you want. And I have to be 100% convinced myself. You have to account for the 58 perimeter support columns, especially on the north face where fire damage had not completely wiped out that side of the building. I am not too proud to say I don't have a fully satisfactory explanation if it comes to that.

Thanks all,
Chris
 
That's the funny thing about Truthers talking about "2.25 seconds of free-fall". They claim that it was caused by "explosives", how freaking insane is that?

2.25 seconds of anything is the start of something massive (like a global collapse) and there's nothing on this Earh that can't stop it. Truthers aren't structural engineers nor fire investigators, they can't simply rule out fire.

If you take out 1 or 2 structural supports, the buildings integrity is comprimised. Fire can cause steel to soften & weaken the supports to cause collapse. What happened in WTC7 was fire induced, it involved no explosives.

BTW: If any Truthers are suggesting that they planted explosives before the collapse, they have to explain why ALL the explosives didn't go off when the building was on fire. Also why isn't there any reports from the FDNY saying they seen CD crews working while they evacuated WTC7?
 
"That's the funny thing about Truthers talking about "2.25 seconds of free-fall". They claim that it was caused by "explosives", how freaking insane is that?"

Thanks, but I am going to be more relentless here in my quest. I believe that in the Twin Towers, the strong structural steel slowed down the collapse by about 33%. I have all kinds of arguments AGAINST Controlled Demolition. I need to fully understand how 58 structural columns provided NO slowdown to the final perimeter collapse for those 2.25 seconds. I remain the Devil's Advocate because I need either a better answer than I have so far or an admission that I haven't found a 100% satisfactory answer. I'm Ok saying either in the debate epilogue.
 
chrismohr said:
Thanks, but I am going to be more relentless here in my quest. I believe that in the Twin Towers, the strong structural steel slowed down the collapse by about 33%. I have all kinds of arguments AGAINST Controlled Demolition. I need to fully understand how 58 structural columns provided NO slowdown to the final perimeter collapse for those 2.25 seconds. I remain the Devil's Advocate because I need either a better answer than I have so far or an admission that I haven't found a 100% satisfactory answer. I'm Ok saying either in the debate epilogue.
Click to expand...

You might have just answered your own question (bold). The collapse is only significant if you focus on the 2.25 seconds and ignore the rest. NIST does not do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom