• 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

WARNING! No more pix of the steel crane and the red hot metal please and for that matter the color codes of temperatures of hot steel, from either side... or the Thread Queen will cut us off again! This thread is most useful to me... The Mohr/Gage debate ain't over yet and I want to accurately represent the best lay explanations of Natural Collapse possible. And BTW sometimes I'm just trying out hypotheses. If I ever say something incorrect, don't let Chris7 be the only one to correct me.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
What the hell? Barnett was part of the Worcester research team that determined the erosion was a sulfidation attack. His name is on the "Initial Microstructural Analysis" paper. He's in the citations in the "Metal Removal Via Slag" paper.

What is this? Barnett's fully aware that the findings are corrosion due to sulfidation attack. He helped determine that.
Click to expand...

i showed you that he saw evaporated steel "members" in the pile. thats plural. more than one.
 
Senenmut said:
i showed you that he saw evaporated steel "members" in the pile. thats plural. more than one.
Click to expand...
Two.

They were corroded, as the paper states, not exactly evaporated like boiled off. Does Gage use this corrosion to support the insane claim of thermite? What is your conclusion? Got one?
 
Kent1 said:
As I previously stated to you in the other thread, I have spoken to Barnett through e-mail. The pieces he mentioned are from the same two steel members that were within Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson reports.

None of these 3 authors believe thermite was a likely source.
E-mail them if you like. But don't get too crazy with them or I doubt you will get a reply.
Click to expand...

post those emails so I can verify that with professor barnett. the article deals with wtc 7 debris pile. there is only one sample in the fema bpat report that deals with wtc 7 steel. he mentioned steel "members" in the article. that is more than one. did he mention a date when he saw these? i have emailed prof sisson who will NOT state how little that little metal he dissovled with powders on steel after 24 hrs was.
 
Senenmut said:
post those emails so I can verify that with professor barnett. the article deals with wtc 7 debris pile. there is only one sample in the fema bpat report that deals with wtc 7 steel. he mentioned steel "members" in the article. that is more than one. did he mention a date when he saw these? i have emailed prof sisson who will NOT state how little that little metal he dissovled with powders on steel after 24 hrs was.
Click to expand...

If there's other steel other than what was discussed I'm not aware of it.
I really shouldn't be reproducing these e-mails. He would rather answer people one on one but here's a e-mail:

For what little its worth I'm also listed under the contributors to the final WTC 7 report.

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Scott Sleeper [mailto:snssleep@pacbell.net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:57 PM
>>> To: Barnett, Jonathan Ross
>>> Subject: Question about building 7 steel?
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Barnett,
>>>
>>> I wanted to double check that these links were the
>> "partly evaporated"
>>> steel you referred to within your
>>> 2001 interview. Also what was your guestimate as
>> to the source of the
>>> sulfur within the samples.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time.
>>>
>>> Scott Sleeper
>>>
>>>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
>>> http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
>>>
>>
> >"Barnett, Jonathan Ross" <jbarnett@WPI.EDU>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> These are the correct links. Possible sources of
>> enough sulfer:
>>>
>>> -Heating oil (extr high probability)
>>> -Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust
>> (extr high
>>> probability) -environmental sources such as acid
>> rain (high)
>>>
>>> Hope this helps! Bottom line is that this is an
>> area that needs
>>> further study
>>>
>>> Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett, Professor, Fire
>> Protection Engineering, WPI

Last I saw here is what Sisson said in a public interview for BBC in 2008.

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
Also see here: Start 48 minutes in. Barnett found the piece in a salvage yard.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250#
 
Last edited:
Christopher 7: Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?


Yes, it could have been molten steel. It could have also been other things (see posts above). So now let's set all these competing hypotheses on the table. It seems unlikely that it was molten steel because the other alternatives are consistent with the thermal image temperatures NASA et al produced, the ones which were used daily by the firefighters on the ground to save their lives and help them focus their firefighting efforts. Because even a metallurgist can't identify a molten metal by sight alone, I would assume that a firefighter or controlled demolition expert wouldn't be any better at it, so in this case eyewitness testimony is trumped by the level of expertise it would take to eyeball the molten metal in question. While molten steel is possible, the hypothesis that best explains the known facts is that it was something else.
 
Kent1 said:
If there's other steel other than what was discussed I'm not aware of it.
I really shouldn't be reproducing these e-mails. He would rather answer people one on one but here's a e-mail:

For what little its worth I'm also listed under the contributors to the final WTC 7 report.

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Scott Sleeper [mailto:snssleep@pacbell.net]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:57 PM
>>> To: Barnett, Jonathan Ross
>>> Subject: Question about building 7 steel?
>>>
>>> Dear Mr. Barnett,
>>>
>>> I wanted to double check that these links were the
>> "partly evaporated"
>>> steel you referred to within your
>>> 2001 interview. Also what was your guestimate as
>> to the source of the
>>> sulfur within the samples.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your time.
>>>
>>> Scott Sleeper
>>>
>>>
> http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
>>> http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
>>>
>>
> >"Barnett, Jonathan Ross" <jbarnett@WPI.EDU>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> These are the correct links. Possible sources of
>> enough sulfer:
>>>
>>> -Heating oil (extr high probability)
>>> -Construction materials such as gyp wallboard dust
>> (extr high
>>> probability) -environmental sources such as acid
>> rain (high)
>>>
>>> Hope this helps! Bottom line is that this is an
>> area that needs
>>> further study
>>>
>>> Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett, Professor, Fire
>> Protection Engineering, WPI

Last I saw here is what Sisson said in a public interview for BBC in 2008.

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
Also see here: Start 48 minutes in. Barnett found the piece in a salvage yard.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250#
Click to expand...

you didnt ask how many pieces he saw that look 'evaportated". ill email him and ask. also the article speaks as if he was at the wtc 7 site and saw the "evaporated" steel. the narrator said it was found at a salvage yard. ill see what he has to say about that.

prof sisson should still find it mysterious because he can only get "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs. prof Astaneh - asl saw a piece of wtc 7 steel that 15.9mm of a36 steel had corroded/erroded/vaporized/evaporated/dissolved in just 8 days. he also saw steel flanges where a full inch had been reduced to razor thin in just 8-18 days. that is massive steel loss considering they expected to find just "distortion and bending--but not holes." all the many yrs of fire science and these guys just now come accross steel like this...only on 911 man.
 
chrismohr said:
Christopher 7: Can you acknowledge that what Tully, Loizeaux, Dr. Geyh, O'Toole. Fuchek and all the other witnesses described as molten steel, could have been molten steel?


Yes, it could have been molten steel.
Click to expand...

No it could not have been. Most people do not have a clue what it takes to get steel to a molten stage and keep it there. It takes a tremendous amount of energy. Far greater than what was available in the debris pile at the WTC

It could have also been other things (see posts above). So now let's set all these competing hypotheses on the table. It seems unlikely that it was molten steel because the other alternatives are consistent with the thermal image temperatures NASA et al produced, the ones which were used daily by the firefighters on the ground to save their lives and help them focus their firefighting efforts. Because even a metallurgist can't identify a molten metal by sight alone, I would assume that a firefighter or controlled demolition expert wouldn't be any better at it, so in this case eyewitness testimony is trumped by the level of expertise it would take to eyeball the molten metal in question. While molten steel is possible, the hypothesis that best explains the known facts is that it was something else.
Click to expand...
 
Igniting Thermite Question

Man we have been circling re the molten metal in the claw.

New question, probably been answered before: Igniting thermites requires high temperatures, and the ignition point seems to vary from 430-650C (I use Farenheit for my debate so 806-1200F). In other words, office fire temperatures once things really get going. In all three buildings, massive fires (in Building 7 burning for almost 7 hours on most floors eventually) would have had to trigger one random thermitic reaction after another. And all three collapses began in fire zones. Seems impossible that a precise controlled demolition could be engineered in such infernos, since the thermites would go off as the fire spread and not in any controlled way. True?
 
chrismohr said:
Man we have been circling re the molten metal in the claw.

New question, probably been answered before: Igniting thermites requires high temperatures, and the ignition point seems to vary from 430-650C (I use Farenheit for my debate so 806-1200F). In other words, office fire temperatures once things really get going. In all three buildings, massive fires (in Building 7 burning for almost 7 hours on most floors eventually) would have had to trigger one random thermitic reaction after another. And all three collapses began in fire zones. Seems impossible that a precise controlled demolition could be engineered in such infernos, since the thermites would go off as the fire spread and not in any controlled way. True?
Click to expand...

Remeber in the delusional world of 911 truth, Gage is using super-duper-nano-thermite which lights at low temperatures, and he never addresses the thermite going off due to fire. In fact if standard charges were in the WTC, thery would "cook off" in the fire.

Debating delusions from Gage, what next a debate on Bigfoot, Santa, and the Easter Bunny. Temperatures up to 2000 F can be found in pools of burning jet fuel, in-spite of the nuts who post open air burning at much lower temperatures, 911 truth does not do fire science, they lie to support their need for delusions to satisfy their hate of their government and fellow man; or they are dumber than dirt and Gage is personable and good liar. I keep forgetting Gage is either dumber than a box of rocks, or a smart snake-oil salesman who does not care how he gets money from the gullible, in a buyer beware situation, the buyers of failed ideas are clueless.

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=13369

http://www.thecatalyst.org/other/thermite/
I have found that a simple piece of magnesium ribbon works fine (the burning temperature of magnesium is about 315°C). I place a piece
long down into the center of the powder, making sure to allow enough fuse to protrude so that I have enough time to back up several feet after lighting it, before the reaction begins.
Click to expand...
Google works when backed with the ability to filter nonsense. I suspect 911 truth can't filter nonsense, prefers nonsense to reality.
 
beachnut said:
Remeber in the delusional world of 911 truth, Gage is using super-duper-nano-thermite which lights at low temperatures, and he never addresses the thermite going off due to fire. In fact if standard charges were in the WTC, thery would "cook off" in the fire.

Debating delusions from Gage, what next a debate on Bigfoot, Santa, and the Easter Bunny. Temperatures up to 2000 F can be found in pools of burning jet fuel, in-spite of the nuts who post open air burning at much lower temperatures, 911 truth does not do fire science, they lie to support their need for delusions to satisfy their hate of their government and fellow man; or they are dumber than dirt and Gage is personable and good liar. I keep forgetting Gage is either dumber than a box of rocks, or a smart snake-oil salesman who does not care how he gets money from the gullible, in a buyer beware situation, the buyers of failed ideas are clueless.

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=13369

http://www.thecatalyst.org/other/thermite/

Google works when backed with the ability to filter nonsense. I suspect 911 truth can't filter nonsense, prefers nonsense to reality.
Click to expand...

Seriously.
Chris I understand your effort. And I think it's important for lay people (like myself) to understand. Unfortunately, every ounce of good you do still brings attention to him. Like they say there's a new one born every minute. Gage counts on that 1 in 1000 who are swayed. He peddles this crap, not to have a debate, but to further his lifestyle of touring the world and pulling a salary from his non-profit. Whether or not he's wrong, he's still going to make money. This has to end. He lives (leeches) off the souls and memories of those who were lost that day and it is quite disgusting and disturbing to me.

Personally I think he should be arrested for being a scam artist.
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
... all the many yrs of fire science and these guys just now come accross steel like this...only on 911 man.
Click to expand...
You made this up. This is a made up statement based on your lack of knowledge. Why did you make this up? No wonder you support Gage, he uses this kind of failed logic, evidence free nonsense.

It is corrosion, it was not caused by thermite because the eutectic formed well below thermite temperatures. This is not the first time steel has corroded, so your statement is false.
 

Fire + Months = No Thermwhatever
Fire + Months = No Thermwhatever
Fire + Months = No Thermwhatever
......................................

​
 
Why am I Bothering?

Justin wrote, "Unfortunately, every ounce of good you do still brings attention to him. Like they say there's a new one born every minute. Gage counts on that 1 in 1000 who are swayed. He peddles this crap, not to have a debate, but to further his lifestyle of touring the world and pulling a salary from his non-profit. Whether or not he's wrong, he's still going to make money. This has to end. He lives (leeches) off the souls and memories of those who were lost that day and it is quite disgusting and disturbing to me.

Personally I think he should be arrested for being a scam artist."


I have heard this argument the last two years. On the other side, I know the people who come to believe in 911 CD. Most are politically aware and dislike and distrust our government. Most are scientific laypeople like me. They're not stupid and don't like being told they are. They see government power increasing as a result of 911 and wonder if the government did more than just take advantage of the opportunity to do this. Richard Gage tells them about controlled demolition and provides evidence to validate their suspicions.

So when they do research on the Gage presentation, they might look at the NIST Report which is written for the tech-savvy and their eyes glaze over. They go to debunker sites and are told Gage is an idiot or a fraud. Most don't have journalistic training and don't know how to go to original source information. Instead, they read the edited versions you get from 911 Truth books and videos. There is incredibly good information to refute Gage's claims, but no place I know of where a suspicious but sincere seeker of the truth about 911 can get our side in a nonthreatening, respectful way.

In my current work I don't exercise my skills as a journalist or my lifelong interest and aptitude for science. This is my chance to keep those muscles toned in my spare time. But as a journalist I was trained by an old-school reporter who fiercely believed that open debate and open discussion exposes inaccuracies and falsehoods better than arresting people for what they say. That's the First Amendment and open, respectful debate and discussion at least gives people on both sides a chance to evaluate for themselves what we are saying vs what Richard is saying. Then they can decide for themselves how to direct their political and humanitarian energies.

And no, I will not be taking on any other debates against global warming deniers, flat earthers, birthers, anti-evolution types, or anyone else. I will complete this process and move on. From 1980-2008 I worked on getting a mountain named after composer Gustav Mahler. Insane amount of work. But Mt Mahler by the northwest edge of Rocky Mountain National Park is now officially named. Good job, someone said, now I'd like you to name a mountain after Richard Wagner! No thanks, someone else can do that. I get a charge out of doing something I've never done before and taking it all the way. By the end I say, Never Again!!!!
 
A Recipe for Aluminum Soup

Hi Chris7,

You asked for proof that aluminum could be discolored by other things in the WTC fires and not be bright silvery. This aluminum soup recipe will resolve the question once and for all:

Melt one ton of aluminum in a strong steel container and bring to 1400 degrees F.

Add:
five padded office chairs
50,000 sheets of paper from filing cabinets
seven airplane seats
Lube oil of all kinds
12 computers circa 2000 with screens and all associated hardware
Six curtains
Five office dividers
The contents of seven randomly selected pieces of airplane luggage
Articles of clothing, hardware supplies, kitchen utensils, etc.
Fifty pounds of colored plastic items available in a typical office

For spice, Mix in melted Bronze, Brass, Magnesium and Zinc to taste.

To stir it up, add the following items which create explosions in building fires: HVAC equipment including condensors and compressors, Cleaning supplies, CRT type TV's and computer monitors, Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube (Elevator lift motors), hydraulic pistons found in office chairs, and UPS battery backups.

Cook for 80 minutes, then pour half of it it out the opening of a burning building for all to see. Pour the rest of the aluminum soup into a debris pile and dump water on it. You'll probably get lots of violent steam action but if you're careful like the 911 firefighters were you should be OK.

Finally, melt the steel pot that was holding the soup and bring it up to 2800 degrees F. Pour the molten steel into a pile of debris and pour water all over it like the firefighters did on 911. Stand back; it will NOT behave in the same way!! In fact, it might kill you.

Special Cooking Contest: If you follow this recipe to the letter and my aluminum soup is a pure bright silvery color, I will send you a check for $91.1 (I've upped the ante by a factor of ten from my original contest offer)!

PS You've recently seen photographic proof that aluminum existed in abundance in the debris pile, you know that planes have tons of aluminum in them (dispersed over a relatively small area and almost completely contained within the Towers, By The Way), that tens of thousands of pieces of aluminum cladding were all over the debris pile including right in the footprint of at least one of the towers, and you have proof that each of the 900+ cars in the garages had over 200 lbs of aluminum each in them. You know that the metal dripped out of the hole where a multi-ton aluminum jet entered the building at some 500 mph an hour before. Please don't insult our intelligence further by denying that meltable aluminum was everywhere in abundance. And until you personally cook up my aluminum soup recipe and prove me wrong, I won't bother to respond again to your assertion that molten aluminum can retain its brilliant silvery purity in a raging inferno. It makes no sense. None. Not even to a layperson like me.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Chris7,

You asked for proof that aluminum could be discolored by other things in the WTC fires and not be bright silvery. This aluminum soup recipe will resolve the question once and for all:.....

....You know that the metal dripped out of the hole where a multi-ton aluminum jet entered the building at some 500 mph an hour before. Please don't insult our intelligence further by denying that meltable aluminum was everywhere in abundance. And until you personally cook up my aluminum soup recipe and prove me wrong, I won't bother to respond again to your assertion that molten aluminum can retain its brilliant silvery purity in a raging inferno. It makes no sense. None. Not even to a layperson like me.
Click to expand...
clap.gif
clap.gif

Well said Chris. My commendation for your patience in waiting as long as you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom