• 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

Dave Rogers said:
This is, actually, the clincher. Gage's analysis of heat transfer comprises a sweeping statement based, apparently, on no data, analysis or expertise whatsoever. NIST's analysis of precisely the same scenario comprises extensive thermal modelling using known material properties, known structural dimensions, and proven numerical modelling software. Gage is demanding that his wild guess should be given more credence than NIST's thorough and professional analysis.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm not too surprised, this is something I'd be unable to do, but Gage has made similar sweeping statements in easier things.
 
Senenmut said:
back to thermate.
it would produce FeS. that is what sisson used in his experiment and that produced similar results to wtc 7 steel. any comments.
Click to expand...

I love how truthers seem to believe, "If only I can prove thermate/controlled demolition/NORAD stand-down orders/etc., we will be well on the way to proving an inside job."

It's like saying, "If only I could finish this kitchen cabinet I've been working on for ten years, I'll be well on my way to building a house."
 
chrismohr said:
Gage: "Any 1800 degree fire would have been almost immediately conducted throughout this 100,000 ton heat sink."

Copper is 8 times more conductive of heat than steel. Does anyone know approximately how long it would take to disperse heat applied to steel to all 110 acres of steel trusses and all 1300' of steel columns? How fast does steel actually conduct heat away from the a fire?
Click to expand...

My favorite video to answer nonsense claims about "heat sink" steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg :D
 
Simple Question #19

In Gage's Blueprint for Truth, there is a barrage of quotes near the beginning, intermingling controlled demolition advocates with scientists and engineers close to the actual 911 disaster: Leslie Robertson (WTC Engineer), Jonathan Barnett (sulfidized steel guy), MIT's Thomas Eagar, etc. It creates the impression that some of these heavy hitters agree with the CD theory.

I already have some good quote-mining examples of some of the guys cited in this part of the video. If you have any more I'd welcome them! I'd also welcome quotes where these people give their opinions of the 911 Truth movement, such as Eagar's quote about how they use "reverse scientific method" (I already have that quote).
 
chrismohr said:
Gage: "Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8" bolts."

How strong are 5/8" bolts? I don't doubt that the Twin Towers were well constructed; they stood up for a good amount of time after the huge plane crashes and fires... but Gage seemed to be talking about these bolts as if they were part of an impenetrable fortress. Seems to me that 5/8" bolts would be weakened when heated and stressed from all the sagging and inward bowing etc.
Click to expand...

From the Manual of Steel Construction

A307 Bolts - 5/8" - Tensile strength area = .2260
Allowable Tensile Strength - Ft KSI =4.52
Shear -10.0 (single shear -3.07, double shear 6.14)
-------------------------------------------------
High strength bolts

A325 - 5/8" - Tensile strength area = .3068
Allowable Tensile Strength - Ft KSI =12.27
Shear -22.0 (single shear -6.75 double shear 13.50)

A490 - 5/8" - Tensile strength area = .3068
Allowable Tensile Strength - Ft KSI =16.57 (static loading only)
Shear -32.0 (single shear -9.82, double shear 19.64)
 
chrismohr said:
In Gage's Blueprint for Truth, there is a barrage of quotes near the beginning, intermingling controlled demolition advocates with scientists and engineers close to the actual 911 disaster: Leslie Robertson (WTC Engineer), Jonathan Barnett (sulfidized steel guy), MIT's Thomas Eagar, etc. It creates the impression that some of these heavy hitters agree with the CD theory.

I already have some good quote-mining examples of some of the guys cited in this part of the video. If you have any more I'd welcome them! I'd also welcome quotes where these people give their opinions of the 911 Truth movement, such as Eagar's quote about how they use "reverse scientific method" (I already have that quote).
Click to expand...

Leslie Robertson:
Leslie Robertson said:
... To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires. ... The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; ... Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. ... To the extent that the structural design of the World Trade Center contributed to the loss of life, the responsibility must surely rest with me. At the same time, the fact that the structures stood long enough for tens of thousands to escape is a tribute to the many talented men and women who spent endless hours toiling over the design and construction of the project . . . making us very proud of our profession. ...
Click to expand...
 
Animal said:
My favorite video to answer nonsense claims about "heat sink" steel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg :D
Click to expand...

Sometimes, when you have a frozen bolt you have to heat the steel (cherry) around it to get it loose. According to Gage's heatsink theory, using a torch on a piece of metal attached to a 10ton piece of equipment would never get it hot enough. :D

Any gaps in the metal would act as an insulator to dissipating the heat. Hence why with real heatsinks (either computer CPUs or the transistorized motor controllers I work on) you have to use a thermal conducting paste to fill those gaps, even on a microscopic level. I buy that crap in 12oz tubes and put it on with a spackle knife.
 
Justin39640 said:
Sometimes, when you have a frozen bolt you have to heat the steel (cherry) around it to get it loose. According to Gage's heatsink theory, using a torch on a piece of metal attached to a 10ton piece of equipment would never get it hot enough. :D

Any gaps in the metal would act as an insulator to dissipating the heat. Hence why with real heatsinks (either computer CPUs or the transistorized motor controllers I work on) you have to use a thermal conducting paste to fill those gaps, even on a microscopic level. I buy that crap in 12oz tubes and put it on with a spackle knife.
Click to expand...

He's never worked in the real world evidently
 
chrismohr said:
Gage: "Trusses were bolted to perimeter columns and core columns with 5/8" bolts."

How strong are 5/8" bolts? I don't doubt that the Twin Towers were well constructed; they stood up for a good amount of time after the huge plane crashes and fires... but Gage seemed to be talking about these bolts as if they were part of an impenetrable fortress. Seems to me that 5/8" bolts would be weakened when heated and stressed from all the sagging and inward bowing etc.
Click to expand...
Chris,

You did not respond to my last post. Will you please acknowledge that the NIST final report on the collapse of WTC 7 does not explain the collapse?

What has been offered as an alternate explanation is just speculation and does not change what NIST said in their final report.

"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79."
 
Christopher7 said:
"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. (See Figure 1–5 for column numbering and the locations of girders and beams.) This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79."
Click to expand...

This is an explanation that speculates on the behavior of KNOWN entities (fire, Column 79, Floor 13, etc.) based on what was observed.

Give us a more plausible explanation that also involves only KNOWN entities. (You can't throw in thermite, explosives, demolition crews, black helicopters, etc., as those are, at best, speculative entities.)

You will ignore this request, of course. You know where it will lead.
 
Simple Question #20

Gage says in Blueprint for Truth that all that smoke rising from the top at the onset of collapse of the Twin Towers is evidence of CD because the fires were lower down. I see smoke and dust in the building being pushed out in every direction due to air compression caused by the diminishing volume of the interior of the building. If anyone wants to add anything to what seems obvious to me, feel free. PS Most of my "simple questions" are like this... it's not like I'm stumped in most cases (except the freefall of Bldg 7 and a couple other things where I really needed help), it's just that sometimes your collective technical knowledge gives me a chance to really come back with a more precise answer.
 
chrismohr said:
Gage says in Blueprint for Truth that all that smoke rising from the top at the onset of collapse of the Twin Towers is evidence of CD because the fires were lower down.
Click to expand...

The only expertise I can offer is that I have seen a CD in person, and no smoke comes out the top...
 
Dave Rogers said:
That's insane. Is he trying to say they took the towers down using demolition charges on the roof?

Dave
Click to expand...

He's actually being pretty clever. We really don't have any reference point for how the smoke from a fire should behave when high explosives are set off, because we usually don't use high explosives in a place that is on fire.

I would think that the smoke would move much faster if pushed out of the way by an explosion, but if the explosives were deep enough in the building it might look the same as if the collapse were causing the smoke to belch out.

Of course, the collapse is a better explanation because we know it existed.
 
Sunstealer said:
Well he joined JREF in 2006 - so he's had 5 years to acquire some form of relevant qualification. C7 what course did you study in that 5 years?
Click to expand...

C7 is most like the "Chris Sarns" that is famous on the AE911T website of spouting the fire on floor 12 out nonsense.

http://a.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

This is his "work" that he loves to use. However, way back on August 9th of last year, I asked Chris to provide the numbers for his calculations that back up his "research". To date, I have yet to even get a single number, let alone a string of numbers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6207426&postcount=929

This is the post that I am referencing.

Chris Sarns is a licensed contractor of some sort.
 
Oystein said:
I remember one JREFer met Gage by sheer coincidence in Washibgton D.C. maybe a year ago as he was talking on the street, and iirc there even was a video of the exchange. Forgot who it was.
Click to expand...

It was in this thread, and the guys name was The Director.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom