Gage's next debate

[Oystein]

here is the source of the info as far as i can tell. its an engineer that has no name that predicted not only the towers collapse but also wtc 7. he was "right on the money" according to deputy chief peter hayden, about the collapse of wtc 7.

this was from a bbc special about wtc 7:

An engineer at the World Trade Center site correctly predicts that WTC Building 7 is going to collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: “We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’” Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. [CNN, 9/12/2001]

They FDNY will have engineers in their ranks.

 

[funk de fino]

They FDNY will have engineers in their ranks.

Mike Catalano was in the building during the fire. He said the fire was large enough to make it collapse. Truthers like to ignore his testimony.

 

[aggle-rithm]

thermate?



similar even at 150C more than what they said the wtc 7 steel experienced. could they get similar results at 950C? how high can we go and for how long or short to see "similar" results.


solid state diffusion occurs on cooling as far as i can read. the austenite stays solid for many more degrees than 950C.
incorrect how?


there still has to be that much sulfur in the eutectic if the 950C is correct.
via solid state diffusion? please explain since the paper states:
"Sulfidation in the solid state into the austenite grains occurs much slower and is observed on cooling as a gradient of precipitated sulfides and oxides or oxidized sulfides with many of these particles containing silicon."
they say on cooling...


which begs the question, how much sulfur would one need to "corrode" 15.9mm of a36 steel in just 8 days!!


but you do need that much sulfur in the "slag" at 950 like they state for there to be a "eutectic"? and a continuous supply of it.


and that is exactly what type of experiment needs to be done to show that a "eutectic" can form from office material to form the "eutectic" that can attack steel like the wtc samples!!!!


considering some parts of that beam are 95% gone, how you can tell that is amazing!! they didnt show what parts were scanned. they just said some of the most corroded parts so im assuming the parts that were almost gone.


all he was doing was playing with eutectics and steel. he wasnt trying to figure out how an office/debris fire could cause a eutectic to form to attack steel.


thermate?



similar even at 150C more than what they said the wtc 7 steel experienced. could they get similar results at 950C? how high can we go and for how long or short to see "similar" results.


solid state diffusion occurs on cooling as far as i can read. the austenite stays solid for many more degrees than 950C.
incorrect how?


there still has to be that much sulfur in the eutectic if the 950C is correct.
via solid state diffusion? please explain since the paper states:
"Sulfidation in the solid state into the austenite grains occurs much slower and is observed on cooling as a gradient of precipitated sulfides and oxides or oxidized sulfides with many of these particles containing silicon."
they say on cooling...


which begs the question, how much sulfur would one need to "corrode" 15.9mm of a36 steel in just 8 days!!


but you do need that much sulfur in the "slag" at 950 like they state for there to be a "eutectic"? and a continuous supply of it.


and that is exactly what type of experiment needs to be done to show that a "eutectic" can form from office material to form the "eutectic" that can attack steel like the wtc samples!!!!


considering some parts of that beam are 95% gone, how you can tell that is amazing!! they didnt show what parts were scanned. they just said some of the most corroded parts so im assuming the parts that were almost gone.


at 1100 and not the 950 like they state the steel reached.


at least he understands that one needs to look at the office/debris fire that is suppose to cause the eutectic in the first place.


hummmmmm...office/debris fire......8 days......15.9mm of a36 steel gone....


wouldnt we all.




and you can show a paper that states that corrison of 15.9 mm in just 8 days or one inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days?

In short: "There's a bunch of stuff I don't understand; therefore, inside job."

 

[beachnut]

Different situation altogether.

You don't know how psy-ops works. To prepare us for the demolition of WTC 7, all afternoon we were told that it was in danger of coming down but that was not true. The damage and fires were not that bad and no one could have predicted the the failure of column 79.
ETA:In other words, no one could have predicted the collapse.
The fires are listed in the final report. There were fires on 10 floors. By 1:00 p.m. the fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30 had burned out. By 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out. The other fires were normal office fires and were not a threat the the building.


Within hours bin Laden was being blamed and that was repeated over and over until everyone believed it but there was no evidence that he was involved then and there is no evidence now.

Goebbles was right:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

No need to use math, or physics, this is pure nonsense, stupid fiction.

Wrong, I blamed/suspected UBL at the second impact. You are off by hours. Anyone who was current on threats to Americans around the world could suspect UBL when they figured out it was an attack.

All buildings on fire could collapse. For WTC 7 what ensured collapse was no water, no firefighting.

Thermite and Thermate being used for CD on 911 was a fantasy made up by Jones 4 years after 911. He made up the fantasy because he was upset with the war.

Normal Office fires destroy buildings. You prefer spreading fiction.

 

[Jono]

Goebbles was right:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Indeed he was, as it didn't take a long time for some to become ardent truthers on behalf of it. And of course, the irony inherent in their tendency to use that quote more often than not escapes them completely.

 

[Kent1]

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

 

[Kent1]

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!

It was started with Reuters. Reuters said they got it by mistake from local news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.

The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?"

It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen."

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #12

Richard Gage in our debate said that exploding the core columns caused the inward bowing of the perimeter columns. Missed that until this morning during a relisten. I don't even understand this claim well enough to debate it! Didn't the inward bowing happen gradually? How would inward bowing happen as a result of bombing the core columns, especially over time since the bowing wasn't sudden but gradual over several minutes?

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #13

Fireproofing: a misnomer? Gage said in our debate, "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires." Do firefighters consider ALL materials fire resistant or fire retardant as opposed to fire-PROOF? If given a chance I would like to authoritatively state that the term fireproofing in relation to ALL buildings is a misnomer and should be taken to mean fire-retarding or fire-resisting. Isn't the idea to create fire-RESISTANT structures so firefighters have time to 1) get people out 2) bring in the hoses or 3) clear a collapse zone when all hope is lost?

 

[Christopher7]

Mike Catalano was in the building during the fire. He said the fire was large enough to make it collapse. Truthers like to ignore his testimony.

I have never heard of this. Source please

 

[chrismohr]

Simple Question #14

Another thing Richard said that escaped me in the debate is that there were no floors in the debris. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Does he mean there should be intact floors otherwise controlled demolition, and if so, why?

 

[funk de fino]

I have never heard of this. Source please

His statements are in the originals that were released. I am positive I have linked this to you before.

ETA - I have linked it to you previously. Seems like you dont remember stuff that debunks your nonsense.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00136.pdf

 

[beachnut]

Fireproofing: a misnomer? Gage said in our debate, "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires." Do firefighters consider ALL materials fire resistant or fire retardant as opposed to fire-PROOF? If given a chance I would like to authoritatively state that the term fireproofing in relation to ALL buildings is a misnomer and should be taken to mean fire-retarding or fire-resisting. Isn't the idea to create fire-RESISTANT structures so firefighters have time to 1) get people out 2) bring in the hoses or 3) clear a collapse zone when all hope is lost?

Yes, you got it right already. Since he does not source his lies, you can just say what you said, you are correct,Gage is wrong. References are out there, bet a pdf is out there with fire stuff about steel, etc. I have read some, just takes time to do a rational google and find some reality based sources.

"We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires."

That is stupid. Makes the Gage groupies undefined stupid.

 

[Kent1]

Another thing Richard said that escaped me in the debate is that there were no floors in the debris. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Does he mean there should be intact floors otherwise controlled demolition, and if so, why?

He believes that all of the floors were blown up because he claims there were no photos that showed floors within the debris.

Gage:
"We would expect to see, in a gravitational collapse, about 110 floors down at the bottom of the pile. Hey, I'd settle for 50. How about 20? No, we don't find even 1 floor down at the bottom. All the metal decking that's used to form this concrete is completely pulverized. You find it in these tiny filings in all of the dust. THAT'S WHERE IT IS."


He (Jones etc) also uses this to make the claim that the floors never pancaked during collapse so they couldn't eject air out of the windows during the collapse.
Therefore the air ejections were in fact due to explosions.

Of course this is wrong on many accounts. (Not getting into the squib details)
1. Why would one expect a large amount of the floors to survive such a collapse?
2. There are photos of the lower floors that are pancaked.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html
3. There are photos of other floors smashed together. (Which Jones etc. tried to claim are melted steel)
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
(Go to bottom of page)

4. There are multiple testimonies that discuss finding smashed/pancaked floors.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4388512&postcount=121


We could fill another thread on all of the dumb squib claims but I'm keeping it short and about the floors right now.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Another thing Richard said that escaped me in the debate is that there were no floors in the debris. Does anyone know what he is talking about? Does he mean there should be intact floors otherwise controlled demolition, and if so, why?

Ironically, Gage has pictures of the "missing floors" right on his own website!

AE911truth.info has the details here.

Missing Pancakes

Any AE911Truth presenter makes a great deal out of looking for pancaked floors from the Towers. There should be 110 stories packed together somewhere in the Pile, but where are they? The group doesn’t have a clue.

Amazingly enough, they actually publishes a picture of some of them. Here is slide 132 from the current two-hour presentation:

The group calls them “meteorites”, and actually believes they are huge chunks of molten iron. They could not be aluminum from the airplane, the group triumphantly exclaims, because aluminum does not rust (referring to the idea that the molten metal under the pile is actually aluminum). It’s true that aluminum doesn’t rust, but iron doesn’t rust in the distinct horizontal bands you see in the picture on the right, either. His picture clearly shows about four layers of rust divided by a concrete-like substance. It is concrete, as well as all the other contents of the office floors, all compressed together.

Wondering aloud about where the pancakes were in the Pile is a question worth asking. It’s one that actually has an answer. AE911Truth publishing pictures of them while doing so is a special brand of mistake.

 

[triforcharity]

Fireproofing: a misnomer? Gage said in our debate, "We do indeed put fireproofing in steel buildings because it makes them indestructible in fires."

To call it "indestructable" is absolutely false. Period. The Titanic was "unsinkable". I rest my case.

Do firefighters consider ALL materials fire resistant or fire retardant as opposed to fire-PROOF?

Virtually nothing is fire proof. Not even concrete. Granted, concrete is used quite often for fire-stops, it is not fire proof. It's about as close as you can get.

THe technical term for the spray on fireproofing is actually "Spray-Applied Fire RESISTANT material" or, SFRM.

See here.
http://www.isolatek.com/pdfs/CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD II Brochure.pdf


This is a product called BlazeShield.

ASTM and UL give this preticular product a rating of "Up to 4 hours". Now, it doesn't say 4 hours, it says "UP TO", which means that it COULD fail at 3 hours, but the likelyhood of that happening is low.

If given a chance I would like to authoritatively state that the term fireproofing in relation to ALL buildings is a misnomer and should be taken to mean fire-retarding or fire-resisting.

UL givea SFRM a rating. They range from 2 hours, to 4 hours on average.

See above PDF.

Isn't the idea to create fire-RESISTANT structures so firefighters have time to 1) get people out 2) bring in the hoses or 3) clear a collapse zone when all hope is lost?

Yes. The purpose of SFRM is two fold. First, it is a passive life safety. It allows enough time for occupant evacuation. The second is for firefighter safety. It should give firefighters enough time to safely extinguish the fire.

Once the 4 hours hs passed, you can bet your paycheck that safety officers on the scene are checking for signs of collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

"And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’”

His statements are in the originals that were released. I am positive I have linked this to you before.
ETA - I have linked it to you previously.
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00136.pdf

Mike Catalano was NOT the engineer that talked to the fire chiefs. He left when WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28. There is nothing in his statement after that time.

Anyone who thinks that someone could predict a collapse 5 hours in advance is a few pickets shy of a fence. That is just bizarre.

 

[Sunstealer]

"And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’”


Anyone who thinks that someone could predict a collapse 5 hours in advance is a few pickets shy of a fence. That is just bizarre.

That's what engineers do! It's called a guestimate. We use our knowledge and experience to give estimates all the time. Usually they are on the conservative side. I do it quite often and get it bang on the money now and then, but usually within the ball park.

Only a nutter conspiracy theorist would find an engineer doing his job odd. There is no significance to this quote whatsoever.

I also find it hilarious that anyone thinks

a) that the NWO would brief the media on an event when they want to keep that event secret.

b) a sooper sekrit agent posing as an engineer goes blabbing about when a building will be demolished.

I'm sure there's a "NWO kitty" cartoon for both ridiculous scenarios.

C7's comment just goes to show the level of paranoia and lack of critical thinking in the truth movement.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What part of

"Iron . . . was melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metal particles . . . . Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).

don't you understand?

What part of

"Iron . . . was melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metal particles . . . . Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).

is relevant?

 

[funk de fino]

"And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?” The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: “And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.’”

Mike Catalano was NOT the engineer that talked to the fire chiefs. He left when WTC 1 collapsed at 10:28. There is nothing in his statement after that time.

Anyone who thinks that someone could predict a collapse 5 hours in advance is a few pickets shy of a fence. That is just bizarre.

So what if Mike wasnt. I never said he was. Figures you would misconstrue everything again.

He was there, he says it was a huge fire that would have brought down the building. He proves there were fires on the lower floors. Funny how you had to be reminded of this. Pretty important witness testimony you have been shown before.

Anyone who thinks office fires cannot cause steel frame buildings to collapse is wilfully ignorant.