• 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

triforcharity said:
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.
Click to expand...

C7 is Chris Sarns, and he is a carpenter as I noted earlier.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

I guess the natural reply would be to just ask questions:
- Why is smoke ejection at the top indicative of explosions? Got any reference for this happening in CDs?
- We know from 911 calls that people in the upper floors were severely suffering from smoke inhalation. Is that also only explicable with explosives, or would that not rather more likely indicate that hot smoke can rise through a structure?
- Is there any evidence that any part of the collapse initiated above the fire zone, near the roof?
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...
Chris,

You avoid the fact that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier by arguing points that are infinitely arguable.

This doesn't require any special knowledge, just the ability to read.

NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

I have posted the fire progression of the fires on floors 12 and 13 from the final report and they had both burned out in the area of the collapse by about 4:00 p.m.

You don't dispute this so you offered opinions by "some people" that it was thermal contraction, but that is not the NIST hypothesis.

Will you acknowledge that NIST has not explained the collapse or will you continue to avoid the issue?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Gage said what??

The hell is he trying to say? Only smoke from demolitions rise, not smoke from fires?? :confused:
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I get it from what aggle-rithm said. He's claiming, it seems, that demolition explosives below the fire created a shockwave which forced smoke from the fire upwards through the parts of the building above the fires. The rather obvious refutation of this would be to look at the movement of the smoke in absolute terms, rather than relative to the falling towers, and note that the smoke and dust left behind by the collapses had no significant upward velocity component.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, I think I get it from what aggle-rithm said. He's claiming, it seems, that demolition explosives below the fire created a shockwave which forced smoke from the fire upwards through the parts of the building above the fires. The rather obvious refutation of this would be to look at the movement of the smoke in absolute terms, rather than relative to the falling towers, and note that the smoke and dust left behind by the collapses had no significant upward velocity component.

Dave
Click to expand...

Ohhhh. Ok. If I twist my perception a bit weirdly, I can actually see where that's coming from. He manages to get away with the claim of explosives and simultaneously avoid the critique of the impact/fire zones setting them off prematurely.

Of course, that leads directly into the notion that the collapses started naturally but were then stopped, and he gets to answer to Bazant's/Zhou's/Le's/Greening's/Benson's works about that. But that's another argument.
 
aggle-rithm said:
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."
Click to expand...
Darn, too long for a sig.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

He actually said "smoke rises" and used it as proof of a CD?

wow.
 
Christopher7 said:
Chris,

You avoid the fact that the fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over an hour earlier by arguing points that are infinitely arguable.

This doesn't require any special knowledge, just the ability to read.

NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

I have posted the fire progression of the fires on floors 12 and 13 from the final report and they had both burned out in the area of the collapse by about 4:00 p.m.

You don't dispute this so you offered opinions by "some people" that it was thermal contraction, but that is not the NIST hypothesis.

Will you acknowledge that NIST has not explained the collapse or will you continue to avoid the issue?
Click to expand...

NIST show evidence of fires later than that in the final report. Stop being dishonest and repeating the earlier report. Huge, unfought fires brought the bulding down as it does to many steel framed buildings.

What happened to Gages heatsinks here?



 
aggle-rithm said:
Yeah, just keep screwing those doors on. We'll worry about those load-bearing walls when we get there.*

*We'll never get there.
Click to expand...

this is interesting.

from ae911truth.org

A significant point in Dr. Farrer’s research came when he examined the samples for sulfur. One steel sample contained a pore with pure sulfur embedded in it. This led him to the discovery of sulfur in abundance in some of the phases. “How do you get sulfur in these pieces of steel or in the debris?” he wanted to know.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html

now if they can find some of those red gray chips with a sulfur layer in between!
 
Senenmut said:
this is interesting.

from ae911truth.org

A significant point in Dr. Farrer’s research came when he examined the samples for sulfur. One steel sample contained a pore with pure sulfur embedded in it. This led him to the discovery of sulfur in abundance in some of the phases. “How do you get sulfur in these pieces of steel or in the debris?” he wanted to know.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html

now if they can find some of those red gray chips with a sulfur layer in between!
Click to expand...

...and the point flies so far over your head that you can't see it with the naked eye.
 
Hi Funk,

Thanks for saying this to C7: "NIST show evidence of fires later than that in the final report. Stop being dishonest and repeating the earlier report. Huge, unfought fires brought the bulding down as it does to many steel framed buildings."

Chris7, you know I am no scientist and never pretend to be. And I have a very low trust of claims made by the 911 Truth movement people. Why? I feel like you and others of your persuasion are trying to rope me in with false claims I am not sophisticated enough to catch. I was willing to agree that it's possible there was molten steel in the debris, but a more likely hypothesis is that there wasn't any (or very little).

Recently you have been harping on me to get me to disagree with the NIST Report re floor 12. I didn't catch what Funk caught, that apparently you are quoting the draft report when the final report of NIST is very different. If he's right, then you're being dishonest. Stop it. Please. You can fool me for awhile but the scientists in our little club are quick to pick up on such shenanigans. If you are not being dishonest, then at best you appear to be in over your head when it comes to some of these scientific questions. Gawd, even I caught the nitrogen-in-air flub a couple weeks ago. I know when I'm in over my head and ask ask ask. You make false assertions and people call you names. What gives?
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Funk,

Thanks for saying this to C7: "NIST show evidence of fires later than that in the final report. Stop being dishonest and repeating the earlier report. Huge, unfought fires brought the bulding down as it does to many steel framed buildings."

Chris7, you know I am no scientist and never pretend to be. And I have a very low trust of claims made by the 911 Truth movement people. Why? I feel like you and others of your persuasion are trying to rope me in with false claims I am not sophisticated enough to catch. I was willing to agree that it's possible there was molten steel in the debris, but a more likely hypothesis is that there wasn't any (or very little).

Recently you have been harping on me to get me to disagree with the NIST Report re floor 12. I didn't catch what Funk caught, that apparently you are quoting the draft report when the final report of NIST is very different. If he's right, then you're being dishonest. Stop it. Please. You can fool me for awhile but the scientists in our little club are quick to pick up on such shenanigans. If you are not being dishonest, then at best you appear to be in over your head when it comes to some of these scientific questions. Gawd, even I caught the nitrogen-in-air flub a couple weeks ago. I know when I'm in over my head and ask ask ask. You make false assertions and people call you names. What gives?
Click to expand...

To answer that question: Irreducible delusion. And the resultant frustration that inevitably results from the inherent cognitive dissonance.
 
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...
Animal,

This is one of the way-coolest videos I've seen for this debate. It's always important to find examples that occasionally are just plain funny while still making a good point. With this one you hit it out of the ballpark, and it's absolutely going to be in the final debate product!
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Funk,

Thanks for saying this to C7: "NIST show evidence of fires later than that in the final report. Stop being dishonest and repeating the earlier report. Huge, unfought fires brought the bulding down as it does to many steel framed buildings."

Chris7, you know I am no scientist and never pretend to be. And I have a very low trust of claims made by the 911 Truth movement people. Why? I feel like you and others of your persuasion are trying to rope me in with false claims I am not sophisticated enough to catch. I was willing to agree that it's possible there was molten steel in the debris, but a more likely hypothesis is that there wasn't any (or very little).

Recently you have been harping on me to get me to disagree with the NIST Report re floor 12. I didn't catch what Funk caught, that apparently you are quoting the draft report when the final report of NIST is very different. If he's right, then you're being dishonest. Stop it. Please. You can fool me for awhile but the scientists in our little club are quick to pick up on such shenanigans. If you are not being dishonest, then at best you appear to be in over your head when it comes to some of these scientific questions. Gawd, even I caught the nitrogen-in-air flub a couple weeks ago. I know when I'm in over my head and ask ask ask. You make false assertions and people call you names. What gives?
Click to expand...

Just wait until he gets to his NIST photo fakery claims for anything that contradicts his nonsense.
 
Senenmut said:
this is interesting.

from ae911truth.org

A significant point in Dr. Farrer’s research came when he examined the samples for sulfur. One steel sample contained a pore with pure sulfur embedded in it. This led him to the discovery of sulfur in abundance in some of the phases. “How do you get sulfur in these pieces of steel or in the debris?” he wanted to know.
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html

now if they can find some of those red gray chips with a sulfur layer in between!
Click to expand...

They already looked for sulfur, and found naught.
You are engaging in wishful thinking.
Note that your Farrer-quote ended with a question, not with an answer. No fact. No evidence. No nothing. As usual.
 
Lawdy. I read some of Ryan's Irreducible Delusion article last night. It's a fistful. Will finish this morning as I continue to play catchup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom