Gage's next debate

[tempesta29]

What fallacy would that be? It's clear what fallacy is involved quoting the number of "experts" that are on your side to substantiate a point.. Comparing that number to the actual number of experts in that field?

Think for a second. Out of all those engineers in NY and NJ, how many have been confirmed to have even seen footage of WTC 7 collapsing, let alone analyzed the data related to its collapse?

It's akin to a man witnessing a murder and your saying that there's no way the murder took place because 6 billion other people know nothing about it.

If you can't see the massive gap in logic then I pity you.

 

[DGM]

Think for a second. Out of all those engineers in NY and NJ, how many have been confirmed to have even seen footage of WTC 7 collapsing, let alone analyzed the data related to its collapse?

It's akin to a man witnessing a murder and your saying that there's no way the murder took place because 6 billion other people know nothing about it.

If you can't see the massive gap in logic then I pity you.

I won't go into the leap it takes for you to come to the reasoning it took to come to this (your) answer here.

The AE 9/11 truth "list" is an "appeal to authority" in itself. Pointing out the scope of that authority is not a fallacy in that context.

Get it?

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Chris,

I want to expand on this a little.

"REASON (Show Slide NASA THERMAL IMAGES) Gage also uses NASA thermal images, The USGS sets the maximum temperature in the debris at more like 1400o . Richard claims in his video that deeper down it would be two to three times that temperature, but that is pure conjecture not supported by the facts. One fact is that there were many tons of Aluminum from Jets, 1000 Cars in underground Garages each with 286 pounds of aluminum in them, tens of thousands of Alcoa Aluminum Exterior Cladding pieces on all four sides of both buildings, and every aluminum window mullion in both buildings. Aluminum melts at only 1200 degrees, well below the temperatures attained by regular office fires."

You also have to account for the fire trucks. The entire outer skin of a fire truck is aluminum. The cab of the truck? Aluminum.

I would guess that about 60-75% of a fire truck is aluminum. They must do this to keep the weight down. If the entire body was steel, it would weigh too much, and you would be bogging down the engine with the 8,800 pounds of water that most fire trucks carry. (1,000 gallon tanks, 8.8 lbs per gallon)

I will get some figures for you from E-One and Freightliner on GVWR.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

In post #915 you accused me of being dishonest:
"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."
Are you saying that you are not sophisticated enough to understand that a fire that has burned out cannot heat steel beans to 600^oC?

1) The photographic evidence confirms that fire had burned out over an hour before the collapse in the area where NIST said it triggered the collapse of WTC 7.
Therefore it did not trigger the collapse and the NIST hypothesis is invalid.

2) The 4 p.m. NIST fire simulation has fire all along the north face but the photographs clearly show that the fire had burned out in the east half of the 12th floor before 4 p.m.
Therefore it is fraudulent.

You say you are a serious debater but you refuse to address these critical issues directly, sidestepping them by offering another possibility that does not refute the fact that the NIST hypothesis does not explain the collapse and their fire simulation is demonstratively fraudulent.
You then said:
"I'm done talking about floor 12. You have my answers, they weren't good enough."

That is correct. Your non-response response did not address the issues, much less refute them. To hide the fact that you cannot refute these fatal flaws in the final report you adopted an attitude and refused to proceed or concede the point.

 

[NoahFence]

Are you saying that you are not sophisticated enough to understand that a fire that has burned out cannot heat steel beans to 600oC?

Are you under the impression that after the fire moved on, the steel beams cooled that much?

I'm fairly sure the ambient temperature was pretty hot, even after the fires moved on. The place must have been like an oven.

Anyway, it's possible to bend steel after it's been in a CAMPFIRE. I'm sure WTC 7 was hotter than that.

 

[000063]

Think for a second. Out of all those engineers in NY and NJ, how many have been confirmed to have even seen footage of WTC 7 collapsing, let alone analyzed the data related to its collapse?

It's akin to a man witnessing a murder and your saying that there's no way the murder took place because 6 billion other people know nothing about it.

If you can't see the massive gap in logic then I pity you.

I can. It's argument from ignorance. And you're perpetrating it.

I won't go into the leap it takes for you to come to the reasoning it took to come to this (your) answer here.

The AE 9/11 truth "list" is an "appeal to authority" in itself. Pointing out the scope of that authority is not a fallacy in that context.

Get it?

They have such a tendency to squeal when you use their own logic on them, don't they?

 

[000063]

Chris,

In post #915 you accused me of being dishonest:
"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."
Are you saying that you are not sophisticated enough to understand that a fire that has burned out cannot heat steel beans to 600^oC?

1) The photographic evidence confirms that fire had burned out over an hour before the collapse in the area where NIST said it triggered the collapse of WTC 7.
Therefore it did not trigger the collapse and the NIST hypothesis is invalid.

2) The 4 p.m. NIST fire simulation has fire all along the north face but the photographs clearly show that the fire had burned out in the east half of the 12th floor before 4 p.m.
Therefore it is fraudulent.

You say you are a serious debater but you refuse to address these critical issues directly, sidestepping them by offering another possibility that does not refute the fact that the NIST hypothesis does not explain the collapse and their fire simulation is demonstratively fraudulent.
You then said:
"I'm done talking about floor 12. You have my answers, they weren't good enough."

That is correct. Your non-response response did not address the issues, much less refute them. To hide the fact that you cannot refute these fatal flaws in the final report you adopted an attitude and refused to proceed or concede the point.

You keep ignoring the question of how long the heat would've taken to bleed off after the fire, especially since the best conductor around would likely be, well, the metal of the building.

 

[Christopher7]

The USGS sets the maximum temperature in [on the surface of] the debris at more like 1400^o. Richard claims in his video that deeper down it would be two to three times that temperature, but that is pure conjecture

It is a reasonable estimate IMO.

Like almost all the points Chris Mohr is making, it is arguable.

Deniers argue that which is arguable ad nauseam and refuse to deal with the facts that are not arguable like the fire on floor 12 that supposedly triggered the collapse had burned out over an hour before the collapse and therefore the NIST hypothesis is invalid. They have NOT explained the collapse.

One fact is that there were many tons of Aluminum . . . . . .

Correct.

Now show the scientific evidence [not photos and videos in dark rooms] that organic material can mix with aluminum and make it glow orange as NIST claims.

 

[tempesta29]

I won't go into the leap it takes for you to come to the reasoning it took to come to this (your) answer here.

The AE 9/11 truth "list" is an "appeal to authority" in itself. Pointing out the scope of that authority is not a fallacy in that context.

Get it?

Since we don't know how many engineers and architects have seen the evidence you can't determine the scope of that authority.

 

[DGM]

Since we don't know how many engineers and architects have seen the evidence you can't determine the scope of that authority.

So you agree AE 9/11 truth's list should not be used as an authority (giving the fact there's no way to know if their numbers are meaningful)? Absent any meaningful work on their part, they should be ignored. Would that be a fair statement?

 

[Christopher7]

You keep ignoring the question of how long the heat would've taken to bleed off after the fire, especially since the best conductor around would likely be, well, the metal of the building.

You keep ignoring the fact that the NIST hypothesis is:

The collapse began when the beams were heated to 600^oC and pushed girder off its seat. [posts 1070 and 1091]

There was no bleeding off of heat because 4 hours of heat was applied in 1 1/2 seconds. [FONT=&quot] NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 352[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [pdf pg 396][/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

So you agree AE 9/11 truth's list should not be used as an authority (giving the fact there's no way to know if their numbers are meaningful)? Absent any meaningful work on their part, they should be ignored. Would that be a fair statement?

No

 

[tempesta29]

So you agree AE 9/11 truth's list should not be used as an authority (giving the fact there's no way to know if their numbers are meaningful)? Absent any meaningful work on their part, they should be ignored. Would that be a fair statement?

I don't understand what you're talking about, quite frankly. I think AE911Truth's list is, in fact, meaningful. Showing how many architects or engineers exist in NY and NJ shows little more than the fact that most people haven't even heard of WTC 7. We know Rumsfeld hasn't.

 

[DGM]

I don't understand what you're talking about, quite frankly. I think AE911Truth's list is, in fact, meaningful. Showing how many architects or engineers exist in NY and NJ shows little more than the fact that most people haven't even heard of WTC 7. We know Rumsfeld hasn't.

How about comparing the "non-professionals" to the "professionals" on that list. Could we draw a conclusion that AE9/11 work is more convincing to the lay-man as apposed to the "professional"?

How is their numbers "meaningful" if it can't be compared to anything?

 

[tempesta29]

I think more than anything it's just a meaningful expression for those particular individuals. I've never claimed the organization was having a huge impact.

The implication was made that no one of relevant training disagrees with NIST's conclusions.

 

[twinstead]

The implication was made that no one of relevant training disagrees with NIST's conclusions.

That depends on what conclusions you're talking about. It's pretty obvious to me that the number of people with relevant training who think that only CD could have made the building collapse like it did is such an abject minority as to be not significant in any way, shape, or form.

 

[triforcharity]

It is a reasonable estimate IMO.

Like almost all the points Chris Mohr is making, it is arguable.

Your uneducated opinion versus my professional opinion is worthless.

If it was 3 times hotter deep in the piles, it would be in the area of 4,200 deg. F. This is hot enough to melt every single thing around it, including large amounts of steel and iron.

This didn't happen. Sorry, it is NOT a reasonable estimate. A reasonable estimate would be in the area of 1600-1800, maybe even 2,000 deg. F.

Which is NOT 3 times hotter. Not in any sense of the meaning.

 

[Christopher7]

Your uneducated opinion versus my professional opinion is worthless.

If it was 3 times hotter deep in the piles, it would be in the area of 4,200 deg. F. This is hot enough to melt every single thing around it, including large amounts of steel and iron.

Correct
ETA: actually, it was the molten iron/steel that was producing the extreme temperatures IMO. That's because I believe the people who said they saw molten steel. If you wish to claim that it was molten aluminum then show the scientific evidence that organic material can mix with molten aluminum and make it glow orange. If you cannot produce such evidence then stop making that claim.

This didn't happen.

Denial

You have firmly established yourself as a denier by refusing to admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out and did not trigger the collapse as NIST claims.

 

[triforcharity]

ETA: actually, it was the molten iron/steel that was producing the extreme temperatures IMO.

How did it become molten? Did it magically melt? You cannot melt steel with dirty looks.

That's because I believe the people who said they saw molten steel.

And we have established that you nor a trained metalurgist can tell just by sight alone what a molten metal is.

You failed miserably. In fact, you ignored the question completly, and wouldn't even venture a guess.

Would you care to take a stab at it?

If you wish to claim that it was molten aluminum then show the scientific evidence that organic material can mix with molten aluminum and make it glow orange. If you cannot produce such evidence then stop making that claim.

Where have I claimed it was absolutely molten aluminum? I don't ever recall that at all. In fact, I recall me naming a few different metals it COULD have been, including aluminum.

Can you conclusively rule out those other metals?

Denial

You have firmly established yourself as a denier by refusing to admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out and did not trigger the collapse as NIST claims.

No, I have firmly established myself who doesn't take the word of an unknown carpenter, over the opinion of a trained fire science expert.

You still have yet to tell us how the heat dissapated even after the fire moved to another location. Do the words "convection" and "radiation" mean anything to you?

They do to me.

 

[chrismohr]

Tempesta wrote, I think AE911Truth's list is, in fact, meaningful.

I do, too. I've talked to too many people on the 911 Truth side who have engineering degrees... plus Kevin Ryan, a trained chemist... and at the 911 debates I have been part of, Truthers come up to me all the time who have real credentials. I think these 1500 architects and engineers are wrong, but in my respectful rebuttal I will not blow them off... even if there are a couple hundred fake names in the list. Frankly, the appeal to authority doesn't mean much to me either way, but all these A&E 911 Truthers on the list of 1500 IS meaningful. And so are my rebuttals.