Gage's next debate

[Oystein]

Fiscal Year 2009, AE911truth payed
- US$87,574 for "Sales Production"
- US$75,450 for Richard's private purse
- US$54,942 for "Operations"
- US$21,941 for "Event Production.
- US$0 for "Scientific Research")

In the course of this whole debate thing I've had a fair amount of contact with Richard Gage and other top people in the 911 Truth movement. I don't know Richard that well and I know nothing about his organization, but I am familiar with small nonprofits and also what the IRS looks for when they investigate nonprofits and this ain't it. My journalist friends would say this looks like your typical small educational foundation, where the "educator" gets a middle class salary and 2/3 or more of the money goes to other stuff like "Sales Production": printing books and DVDs; "Operations" looks like office expenses and may include contract labor to mail out stuff, postage, phone, insurance, website management, etc.; "Event production"... well, Richard went to something like ten cities in the last month, so if AE911's mission is to educate the public about 911 CD, Richard has fulfilled their mission in spades for not much money.

It would look a lot worse if 80% of the money went to Richard. And every year or so a bigger foundation like Greg Mortensen's Three Cups of Tea group that supposedly built 100 schools in Afghanistan with lots of international donations gets caught building almost nothing (BBC went to 30 of these places and found only one operating school; the rest were abandoned buildings or someone else's school!). And what was that Christian group that raised millions and then housed one kid in a wheelchair in a big mansion they bought? These kinds of things are REALLY bad, a waste of the altruistic energies of our whole society.

AE911 is a small educational group with one extremely committed leader and a bunch of volunteers. Structurally, I would guess they are like thousands of other little nonprofits out there. And I DO know Richard well enough to know he is totally sincere and committed to his 911 Truth crusade. He is intelligent, likeable, and I have told him I am baffled that we can see things so completely differently. No explanation I have ever heard has ever rung true. Insanity? Nope. Fraud? Nope. I've given up trying to understand. What a long strange trip it's been!

Chris, the context here is that we have no indication that AE911truth pays for any independent research or investigation to further their agenda. I showed that they have a serious budget (somewhat over 300,000 in 2009), but don't do any concrete steps towards what I perceive as their two main objectives:
- Petition Congress
- A new investigation
They are so much aware of the criticism of the Bentham paper - why not fund a confirmation by a respected lab? That was where this discussion started.

We are waiting for the 2010 Form 2010. Maybe then we get a better feel for how they develop.

 

[Sunstealer]

You are trying to say that you know better than the RJ Lee Group and that is hogwash.

Nope - I'm trying to get you to think and show you the depth of penetration of the beam into the sample and how that relates to what is being measured.

You could still do the calculation and what I've kindly asked you to do.

The reason I'm doing this is to get you to actually do some very, very simple work. The answer to the equation is actually in my post btw.

Both the text and the caption say that it is an iron [not iron oxide] sphere. The spectrum for iron oxide has a huge "O" spike while the spectrum for the iron sphere has a small amount. The difference is obvious.

Source please. You are not going to get away with that sort of claim any more.

I was going to set you another very simple task - calculate the peak height ratio between O and Fe*, but I'm not sure you can do it - it requires the use of a tape measure or ruler. You are making the uninformed mistake of looking at peak heights only. A rookie mistake.

* means measure the height of the two peaks and then divide the Fe height by the O height. Very complicated.

It is abundantly clear that you will deny any scientific data that proves the official narrative false. You persist in arguing about the sphere and ignore the point.

Nope - it's abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are on about. On the other hand I've given you the equation along with the numbers to plug in that will show how deep inside the particle the electron beam will penetrate. Do you know how a SEM works? Do you know how EDX works? Do you know how this relates to the discussion?

You are not running away from such an easy calculation are you? Exponentials aren't that hard, there are even handy sites on the web that will calculate them.

 

[funk de fino]

Are you saying the O in the spectrum is not there?
Or are you saying Sunstealer's method is invalid?
Or are you saying "an authority has spoken, my belief in it is unshakable by reason and argument"?

Must be one of the three. Please elaborate!

I'd go with the bolded. You are wasting your time arguing with C7, his idealogical blinders make him impervious to it. He has many times refused to confirm anything with anyone who has been quoted to him to disprove his nonsense.

 

[chrismohr]

Gage's petition to congress?

Chris, the context here is that we have no indication that AE911truth pays for any independent research or investigation to further their agenda. I showed that they have a serious budget (somewhat over 300,000 in 2009), but don't do any concrete steps towards what I perceive as their two main objectives:
- Petition Congress
- A new investigation
They are so much aware of the criticism of the Bentham paper - why not fund a confirmation by a respected lab? That was where this discussion started.

We are waiting for the 2010 Form 2010. Maybe then we get a better feel for how they develop.

Oystein,

I just checked the AE911 website and they did do this...

http://www.meetup.com/WeAreChangeMD/events/14403117/

Looks like rather than Gage delivering one petition nationally, it's being delivered by people who live in the districts of the congresspeople. I don't know if that's true, but if it is it's a good strategy because congresspeople sometimes feel more answerable to their own constituents. In the 80s I was a peace activist running a grassroots peace lobbying effort and that is what we did. In Colorado we got a Republican Senator to vote against contra aid twice, and several Republican congresspeople to vote against wastefully redundant military spending when the Pentagon itself would say they didn't need two versions of a pork-laden weapons program in two separate congressional districts. We did some things at the grassroots level that the national people couldn't do on their own.

What I'm saying about AE911 is conjecture. It just looks like the kind of grassroots strategy we successfully employed in the 80s with our rather moderate little group.

As for the Bentham dust study, I completely agree. I've said to Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and others that they should get a real, independent investigation of the thermites in the dust. Now you guys are telling me that a truly independent study can be done for a couple grand. I'm changing my tune and not telling them what they should do any more (they didn't like that). I'm just going to say I won't support an independent investigation until RJ Lee says there are thermites in the dust.

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #10 or so

In my debate with Richard Gage, I came down pretty hard on him for his continued attacks against the BBC announcer who claimed Building 7 had already fallen. He claimed that CNN (?) reported on its collapse way earlier than that, maybe around 1145 am or so.

As a radio guy since 1978 with lots of contact with journalists, I know that sometimes things are written up in advance. Here in Colorado, with the 1999 Columbine school shootings, anchors were being handed pre-made scripts to read. A mistake could have happened... say, if the just-in-case script for a terrorist walking out of the school with guns pointed at the heads of students had been accidentally read. It didn't... but maybe on 911 that could have happened as soon as firefighters started talking about a possible collapse. By late afternoon media outlets seemed almost divided between accurate reportage ("Firefighters say Building 7 is unstable and may well collapse") and pre-collapse gaffes ("Building 7 has collapsed").

Does anyone know how and when this mistake started?

And thanks all for the many answers already!

 

[Telltale Tom]

Oystein,

I just checked the AE911 website and they did do this...

http://www.meetup.com/WeAreChangeMD/events/14403117/

Looks like rather than Gage delivering one petition nationally, it's being delivered by people who live in the districts of the congresspeople. I don't know if that's true, but if it is it's a good strategy because congresspeople sometimes feel more answerable to their own constituents. In the 80s I was a peace activist running a grassroots peace lobbying effort and that is what we did. In Colorado we got a Republican Senator to vote against contra aid twice, and several Republican congresspeople to vote against wastefully redundant military spending when the Pentagon itself would say they didn't need two versions of a pork-laden weapons program in two separate congressional districts. We did some things at the grassroots level that the national people couldn't do on their own.

What I'm saying about AE911 is conjecture. It just looks like the kind of grassroots strategy we successfully employed in the 80s with our rather moderate little group.

As for the Bentham dust study, I completely agree. I've said to Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and others that they should get a real, independent investigation of the thermites in the dust. Now you guys are telling me that a truly independent study can be done for a couple grand. I'm changing my tune and not telling them what they should do any more (they didn't like that). I'm just going to say I won't support an independent investigation until RJ Lee says there are thermites in the dust.

Does this mean that the petition has been delivered to Congress for consideration.? Or has it been delivered to Congressmen.?

Will the New York Congressmen get all the signatures or just the 50 or so signatures from New York, including the one structural PE who is registered here?

If Congress is given the first thousand names, do you think think they will be cut by alphabet, date or country. I think it will look better if we take off the overseas names, particularly from islamic nations such as pakistan and malaysia. Does anyone know if there are 1000 US signatures?

 

[Christopher7]

It is abundantly clear that you will deny any scientific data that proves the official narrative false. You persist in arguing about the sphere and ignore the point.

Nope - it's abundantly clear that you have no clue what you are on about. On the other hand I've given you the equation along with the numbers to plug in that will show how deep inside the particle the electron beam will penetrate.

You ignored the point again.
Iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse.

You keep trying to make this an argument between you and me. It isn't.

It's about your claiming that the RJ Lee Group got it wrong and you know better. You don't

 

[Christopher7]

In my debate with Richard Gage, I came down pretty hard on him for his continued attacks against the BBC announcer who claimed Building 7 had already fallen. He claimed that CNN (?) reported on its collapse way earlier than that, maybe around 1145 am or so.

No one in the Truth Movement, including Mr. Gage, blames Jane Stanley. We know that she was reading a teleprompter and did not know which building Building 7 was. The criticism is of the BBC.

The first report of a 50 story building going down was at 11:07 on CNN. This could not be a "mistake".
http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

 

[triforcharity]

In my debate with Richard Gage, I came down pretty hard on him for his continued attacks against the BBC announcer who claimed Building 7 had already fallen. He claimed that CNN (?) reported on its collapse way earlier than that, maybe around 1145 am or so.

As a radio guy since 1978 with lots of contact with journalists, I know that sometimes things are written up in advance. Here in Colorado, with the 1999 Columbine school shootings, anchors were being handed pre-made scripts to read. A mistake could have happened... say, if the just-in-case script for a terrorist walking out of the school with guns pointed at the heads of students had been accidentally read. It didn't... but maybe on 911 that could have happened as soon as firefighters started talking about a possible collapse. By late afternoon media outlets seemed almost divided between accurate reportage ("Firefighters say Building 7 is unstable and may well collapse") and pre-collapse gaffes ("Building 7 has collapsed").

Does anyone know how and when this mistake started?

And thanks all for the many answers already!

I have always pointed out something that you will need to keep in mind.

Most people outside of NYC didn't even know about Building 7 (7WTC), and a vast majority of the US Citizens did not know that the WTC contained more than the Twin Towers.

The fact that BBC got their information wrong is not suprising. Hell, before I moved to NY, I didn't know that there were more than just 1&2 WTC.

Also, as I am sure you know, media reports sometimes get things wrong.

Also, the shooting at Ft. Hood. Early on in the day, the shooter was reported to have been killed. We know that to not be true.

We also heard that Camp David had been hit by a plane also on 9/11. We know now that is not true either.

This is known as the "Texas Shartshooter Fallacy".

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have always pointed out something that you will need to keep in mind.

Most people outside of NYC didn't even know about Building 7 (7WTC), and a vast majority of the US Citizens did not know that the WTC contained more than the Twin Towers.

The fact that BBC got their information wrong is not suprising. Hell, before I moved to NY, I didn't know that there were more than just 1&2 WTC.

Also, as I am sure you know, media reports sometimes get things wrong.

[qimg]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1324/1054181478_16b8e5ec3d.jpg[/qimg]

Also, the shooting at Ft. Hood. Early on in the day, the shooter was reported to have been killed. We know that to not be true.

We also heard that Camp David had been hit by a plane also on 9/11. We know now that is not true either.

This is known as the "Texas Shartshooter Fallacy".

I remember reading a report that the State Department building had been bombed on 9/11.

 

[triforcharity]

I remember that also.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/11/0911usattack3.html

 

[chrismohr]

No one in the Truth Movement, including Mr. Gage, blames Jane Stanley. We know that she was reading a teleprompter and did not know which building Building 7 was. The criticism is of the BBC.

The first report of a 50 story building going down was at 11:07 on CNN. This could not be a "mistake".
http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

Thanks for the link, Chris7. And BTW EVERYONE has been personally attacked in this whole 911 thing. Jane has been hounded for what she said on BBC, Larry Silverstein can hardly make public appearances, the grieving family of the late Barry Jennings has been hounded by people who think they have the right to know his cause of death even if the family prefers not to go public with that information--even to the point of 911 activists hiring a PI, politicians talking to their constituents about Social Security get interrupted by screaming 911 activists, and oh yes... I have been called a false prophet, slime, an idiot, a traitor, a CIA shill, a fraud, etc etc etc. Some day I may be proven wrong (I doubt this) but I know with complete certainty I am none of the other things people have called me.

Chris I know you would never ever stoop to any of that, but don't say no one in the movement does these things because they do. The meanness goes both ways, I know, so the best I can do is stay clear of adding to the invective as much as possible.

 

[NoahFence]

snip
I have been called a false prophet, slime, an idiot, a traitor, a CIA shill, a fraud, etc etc etc. Some day I may be proven wrong (I doubt this) but I know with complete certainty I am none of the other things people have called me.

Ah ha.... But have you been called a "paid disinformation agent" yet? I have, and I've yet to see a W2 (much less a check)

As for the erroneous bbc report - there are only two options for Gage to consider:

Either A) it was a mistake or B) the perpetrators of the worst terrorist act mankind has ever seen TOLD the news.

I'm going with A. Ask him that.

 

[R.Mackey]

As for the Bentham dust study, I completely agree. I've said to Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan and others that they should get a real, independent investigation of the thermites in the dust. Now you guys are telling me that a truly independent study can be done for a couple grand. I'm changing my tune and not telling them what they should do any more (they didn't like that). I'm just going to say I won't support an independent investigation until RJ Lee says there are thermites in the dust.

This seems reasonable to me. I'd also accept EMRTC, MACE, NJIT's ACN group, or any of a dozen other reliable, legitimate science outfits. Any one of these verifying the ridiculous claims of Dr. Jones and Harrit will get my attention.

However, this will never, ever happen. You can quote me.

 

[beachnut]

You ignored the point again.
Iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse. ...

How was the lead vaporized? How does this fit with your thermite delusion? Thermite has lead? How come the report does not mention thermite?

The report says the lead was on the mineral wool. Vaporized lead is on the mineral wool during manufacture.
Prove the iron was melted and lead vaporized during the collapse by thermite, that is not what the report says.

The report says fly ash, three times, iron could be from the fly ash, released from concrete during the collapse. Right during the collapse stuff was released with lead on it, from manufacture, and iron spheres from the cement.
Plus the

, 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead.

... 130 tons of TNT in kinetic energy, in each collapse, helped spread the melted lead from computers all over the place. 130 tons of TNT kinetic energy during each collapse help crush the concrete and spread the fly-ash all over.​

The WTC event includes burning piles for months and clean up. The paper is based on dust samples take from the WTC event, including clean up and burning piles of rubble.

The heat generated during the WTC Event caused some plastics to form residual vesicular carbonaceous particles, and paints to form residual spherical particles. Some metals, plastics and other materials were vaporized thus producing new chemicals that were deposited onto the surfaces of solid particulate matter, such as asbestos, quartz, and mineral​

wool.

WTC event includes clean up and burning piles of WTC.

Your CD delusion was debunked on 911.​

 

[chrismohr]

No one in the Truth Movement, including Mr. Gage, blames Jane Stanley. We know that she was reading a teleprompter and did not know which building Building 7 was. The criticism is of the BBC.

The first report of a 50 story building going down was at 11:07 on CNN. This could not be a "mistake".
http://www.youtube.com/v/9_E6RhuEQu4

So Chris7, Simple Question #11: My hypothesis is that a few firefighters saw the 20-story gash and big fires coming out of Building 7 by 10:45 am and someone may have said, Oh My God it may be coming down too, and that got misheard as "It collapsed", and CNN reports it and then everyone picks up on it. I was in Denver for the Columbine H.S. massacre and reporters said over 50 dead students at one point. People freak out in crisis and say things are even worse than they are.

Alternative hypothesis: in disasters, journalists pre-type up scenarios on the fly and may have typed up a "going to collapse" script and a "has collapsed" script for the anchors and they got mixed up in the shuffle. Not likely here because it sounds like the CNN guy on the phone had gotten his misinformation straight from firefighters.

So my question is this: If you believe this is more than a gaffe during crisis and actually is evidence of controlled demolition, is there an explanation for why the evildoers would have told CNN that Building 7 HAD collapsed 6 1/2 hours earlier than it actually did? Why would they have said this? How would this have served them?

 

[dafydd]

Does this mean that the petition has been delivered to Congress for consideration.? Or has it been delivered to Congressmen.?

Will the New York Congressmen get all the signatures or just the 50 or so signatures from New York, including the one structural PE who is registered here?

If Congress is given the first thousand names, do you think think they will be cut by alphabet, date or country. I think it will look better if we take off the overseas names, particularly from islamic nations such as pakistan and malaysia. Does anyone know if there are 1000 US signatures?

Does anyone care?

 

[Christopher7]

So Chris7, Simple Question #11: My hypothesis is that a few firefighters saw the 20-story gash and big fires coming out of Building 7 by 10:45 am and someone may have said, Oh My God it may be coming down too, and that got misheard as "It collapsed", and CNN reports it and then everyone picks up on it.

No, the debris damage from WTC 1 is depicted on pg 183 of the final report. The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground, and the 20 story gash are not there. Column 15 is the SW corner and column 22 is the center of the south face.

There is also damage to floors 44 to 47 between columns 19 and 21 [pg 187] The gash was not 20 stories, it was 4 stories.

Pg 190 "The large dust clouds generated by the collapse of WTC 1 hid the lower portions of WTC 7 from view for over 20 min following the collapse."
[WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28]

Pg 194 "Prior to 12:10 p.m., there was no evidence of fire on the upper floors of WTC 7. Between 12:10 p.m. and 2:10 p.m., the only fires directly or indirectly observed were on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30."

Your hypothesis is not possible.

Alternative hypothesis: in disasters, journalists pre-type up scenarios on the fly and may have typed up a "going to collapse" script and a "has collapsed" script for the anchors and they got mixed up in the shuffle. Not likely here because it sounds like the CNN guy on the phone had gotten his misinformation straight from firefighters.

The report said a 50 story building went down at about 10:45. That could not be a mistake.

So my question is this: If you believe this is more than a gaffe during crisis and actually is evidence of controlled demolition, is there an explanation for why the evildoers would have told CNN that Building 7 HAD collapsed 6 1/2 hours earlier than it actually did? Why would they have said this? How would this have served them?

It could be WTC 7 was supposed to go down at 10:45. It would have been hidden from view by the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC 1.

 

[Jono]

There is also damage to floors 44 to 47 between columns 19 and 21 [pg 187] The gash was not 20 stories, it was 4 stories.

Here's an image of a scooped-out portion, that one is notably larger than four stories. Here's the hole from another angle, it's definently not a four-storey gash.
Then you have that other longated gash up-to-down on the south side.

 

[Sunstealer]

Kanaya-Okayama Depth Penetration Formula =1.59µm

aaaaa0.0276 A E^1.67 R= --------------------------
aaaaaZ^0.89p

Where

R= depth penetration (µm)
A= atomic weight (g/mol) [55.847]
E= Beam energy (Kv) [20]
Z= atomic number [26]
p= density (g/cm³) [7.9]

Seeing as C7 can't do the maths. Plugging in the numbers the depth of penetration =1.59µm. From the RJ Lee SEM photo the particle diameter is approximately 3.5µm. Therefore particle radius is 1.75µm.

Therefore 1.59/1.75 * 100 = 90%. So the penetration is 90% of the particle radius. This means that subsequent x-rays produced will be predominantly from the inside of the particle proving that the O₂ is not just from the surface layer.

The peak ratio of Fe to O is approximately 3.2.

The particle contains a significant proportion of iron oxide. QED.

Info on Kanaya-Okayama and electron beam interaction.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36814782/2/Kanaya-Okayama-Depth-Penetration-Formula
http://sbio.uct.ac.za/Webemu/SEM_school/SEM_school8.php