Scott, I am bored too, so here some quick guiding answers from the top of my head:
...
1.) "My oppt must resolve the symmetrical free fall collapse of building 7 without the use of explosives"
I thought this was resolved years ago when we saw the collapse begin with the penthouse or whatever? Am I wrong here to think he's really stretching the truth?
- The condition he sets up is absurd. Why should a symmetric building not fall somewhat symmetrically?
- He is wall aware that the condition cannot be met in a debate. Since global collapse is a chaotic process, only very powerful computers, fed with detailed models of the structure and well-reasoned parameters for fire loads etc., could do this. However, since this approach is almost by definition opaque (you can't check its validity by reading and some quick googling), truthers will reject it immediately.
- But to strike dowmn that condition, one of course needs to only point out that the collapse wasn't very symmetric: WTC7 twisted as it fell, and caused different amounts and areas of debris and collateral damage on its four sides.
In other words: Gage LIES in order to trap you in an impossible to meet condition.
2.) "The melting of steel girdir as documented by structural engineers and fema"
Is this another stretch?
He is talking about two pieces of steel found in the rubble that showed an unusual degree and kind of corrosion and were analysed by fire scientists from Worchester Politechnic Institute (WPI), Mr. Barnett, Biderman and Sisson; a version of that analysis became appendix C of the first FEMA report.
What happened there is something that metallurgists call "intergranular melting of eutectics". It is a slow, microscopic process during which no bit of the steel became molten in a layman's sense that one would picture as a flowing and dripping liquid. Instead, the steel just wears off grain by grain. This happened over a period of at least 8 days on the pieces studies, during which some inches flaked off.
Gage indeed is telling his audience a LIE, because he must be aware that all the non-metallurguists will likely misconstrue this as "whooo, steel got 1500°C hot and melted away like ice in the sunshine".
3.) "The documented finding of several tones of molten steel or iron found in the basements of all three buildings"
Proove to me that it was steel and I'm with you on the "DEBATE IS OVER" argument.
Scott, of course the debate isn't over then. No theory has been proposed for any alternative collapse scenario that also explains "tons of molten iron", especially in light of the fact that the alleged observbations were recorded days, weeks, even months later. Thermite with it's low energy content surely couldn't do that - it burns off quickly, and solidifies minutes later.
But the more important point is of course that in fact NO evidence for significant amounts of molten STEEL exists. None of the eye witness accounts can be corroborated, and all have reasoms to doubt them (usually the lack of opportunity or qualification of the observer to identify molten steelk as such, rather than some other molten material, or solid, glowing steel. In many cases we know that truthers misconstrue some of the accounts to embellish them.
4.) "The billions of previously molten iron microspheres discovered by the USGS in the WTC Dust...."
Who is the USGS? and is this claim remotely correct?
Not sure if the USGS reported iron
microspheres. All I remember is long charts of elements to various locations.
When we debate "iron microspheres", more usually reference is made to a study by the RJ Lee group about the contamination of 130 Liberty Street (Deutsche Bank building). They reported 6% by mass iron-
rich microspheres and note in passing that these are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses. They don't elaborate on the why, and this is, frankly, one of the few things I don't understand yet.
But of course the important point is that Gage would LIE if he misconstrued the iron-RICH spheres as IRON-spheres (not sure if he did or if you were sloppy paraphrasing his argument). In reality, you will find almost no elemental iron in such spheres, and I don't know that anybody has.
5.)"The red/grey chips of advanced energetic nanothermite composite materials" (fansy statement Gage)
This is that "Peer" reviewed paper by Stephen Jones that has been pretty much debunked right?
Yep.
I have a messy little blog where I collected most of the debunker points; there's little structure, but has all the links to where Sunstealer showed what the chips REALLY are: two different kinds of paint/primner on rust flakes.
This is the best part so far......
"Could it be because we...unlike NIST, apply the time honored Scientific Method which many of us learned in the 7th or 8th grade........it starts with honest background research"
Is that just a fancy way for him to say Youtube? I mean that made me outright laugh. Richard Gage is much more familiar with the scientific method than NIST, are you kidding me????
Zero scientific papers in respected, peer-revied architecture journals.
Zero scientific papers in respected, peer-revied engineering journals.
Somehow, none of these a&e know where to take science to make it matter.
