Gage's next debate

[beachnut]

I don't know. However, nano-thermite does not need to be a high explosive because the cutting is done with 4500 degree molten iron.

...
The thermite paper is evidence of nano-thermite [not just nanos] being present in the dust, objections notwithstanding. A real investigation into the events of 9/11 would include other independent qualified groups confirming or disproving the findings. NIST ignored the evidence of explosives i.e. numerous witness accounts and experts like Romero saying it looked like a CD.

These firefighters experienced huge explosions in the lobby. .... Google "whistle blowers".

Thermite does not do well unless a major effort is made to direct it. Sorry, you can't use thermite efficiently, that is why CD used explosives, pre-cuts the steel, and uses shaped charges. You should study this stuff before making delusional claims. Thermite leave iron, which would be fused to the steel, like a crust; no thermite used on 911.

The thermite paper is fiction, the material found does not match thermite, it does not have the correct energy, clearly exposed in the thermite paper. Try reading the paper for what it says, and see how they found the most common elements on earth, not thermite.

The firefighters in the lobby did not experience explosives, they would be dead, their brains would be mush. You need to study explosives you don't have a grasp on this stuff.

Oh yes, google your way to knowledge, a great ending.

 

[Christopher7]

Fe3O4 <> Fe2O3

My bad

That's iron spheres after burning. (ETA: iron-rich spheres, to be precise)
I was asking for aluminium spheres before burning.

You are assuming that there is only one formula for nano-thermite and there must be aluminum spheres.

Paint does not produce iron spheres, nano-thermite does.

(Besides, as a comparison of Fig. 7 and 14 shows, the MEK soaked chip is a different material from the other 4 chips. As Sunstealer has shown some weeks ago, it resembles WTC primer paint very much, whereas he other four samples do not)

So that is the proper one to test.

 

[Oystein]

I did not say we should ignore objections, I said those objections should be addressed by having other groups repeat the experiments....

Carry that objection to S. Jones and Harrit. Press them! Press hard! Ask them what their plans are: Which indipendent, non-truther laboratory will get one of their samples, and when? Make them be very specific!

Then report back how they ignore or appease you.



My prediction: They will NEVER allow an independent group repeat the experiments with their samples. Never ever.

Agreed?

 

[Oystein]

My bad

You are assuming that there is only one formula for nano-thermite and there must be aluminum spheres.

1. You are ready to defend any nonsense, if only it is written by truthers, right?
To remind you of the context:
- Harrit and the bunch referenced Tillotson to compare their chips to his nano-thermite.
- Their chips had a much lower ignition temperature
- Their chips yielded much more energy and power
- Their chips have platelet stack structures much like aluminium silicates, Tillotson has aluminium spheres
Any sane person will count that as 3 dissimilarities out of 3 and conclude that Harrit's chip does not resemble Tillotson's nano-thermite in any way whatsoever.
Harrit and the bunch come to a different conclusion:

Now we compare a DSC trace obtained for a WTC red/gray chip with a DSC trace obtained for known super-thermite (see Fig. (29)).
Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature (about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite, not ordinary (macro-) thermite.

2. Any formula for nano-thermite must contain elemental aluminium (save for a few nanometers of oxide layer), and these cannot possibly come in platelet stacks. Any controlled preparation of nano-sized Al-particles will come in spheres, not in platelet-like stacks.

C7, what are the platelet-like stacks you see in Fig. 8?

Paint does not produce iron spheres, nano-thermite does.

You are assuming that there is only one formula for paint and there must not be iron spheres.

[qimg]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8558/ignitedchip2.jpg[/qimg]

So that is the proper one to test.

You are assuming that there is only one way for iron(-rich! When will you ) spheres to show up in a burnt sample and that this is thermite.

 

[NoahFence]

I don't know. However, nano-thermite does not need to be a high explosive because the cutting is done with 4500 degree molten iron.

It most certainly does need to be a high explosive.

"They looked like a classic controlled demolition"

That's truther line 101 stuff there.

 

[NoahFence]

Idiotic comparison.
The explosions these firefighters experienced that destroyed the lobby should have been investigated.

Site of the largest terrorist attack the world has ever seen.

Stuff's gonna blow up. Duh.

 

[000063]

You are assuming that there is only one formula for nano-thermite and there must be aluminum spheres.

Prove there is a)more than one formula, and b)aluminium spheres aren't necessary.

Paint does not produce iron spheres, nano-thermite does.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8558/ignitedchip2.jpg

So that is the proper one to test.

Is that the one Truthers refuse to submit to independent, non-Truther, non-govt examination, or am I confusing it with something else?

You cannot demand an "independent" investigation, yet refuse to apply those same standards to Truther claims.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Thank you for the link.

Part of his original statement:
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse"

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

He is an expert on the subject and his initial impression was enough to warrant investigating the possibility of CD. i.e. test for explosives.

In the interview he reiterated that the Trade Towers looked like a controlled demolitions and he wanted to put out the idea that there could be a number of scenarios that could take place. He said "From my perspective it looked like that controlled collapse was internal explosives and so that's one of the possibilities that could happen".

But the only scenario NIST considered was fire.

Van Romero said that "more information came out about what happened at the event in the week before the second article and he had more data to formulate a decision." . . . "We learned that there were exposed beams [insulation blown off], hot fire, . . . . and that hot fire cause the beams to collapse."

There was no "data" at that point, there was a lot of speculation.

Then it gets really bizarre. He actually says that the towers were designed to fail that way because they didn't want the building to fall over into another building. "You want it to collapse inside itself. So the building actually operated exactly as it was designed." Romero said.

I have never heard anything like that in my life and anyone who believes that is terminally stupid.

Buildings are designed NOT to fall at all.

Thank you so much for posting this. It exemplifies just how much absurdity some people will say and accept in defense of the Official Collapse Theory.

C7: so I guess this means you're retracting your false claim that Romero was told to STFU?

Originally Posted by Christopher7
...
It appears to me that like Van Romero who was very open about the towers looking like a CD and then doing a 180, Leslie was very open about molten steel until someone told him to STFU or else.

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Chris7, you never did respond to my post here

I wonder why that is Chris7?

 

[Dave Rogers]

How do you know that has not happened? The media is owned and controlled by a few corporations and anyone who talks is "Dixie Chicked". i.e. called a "nut job", ignored and often fired.

As of 2009, they have won 13 Grammy Awards, with 5 of them earned in 2007 including the coveted Grammy Award for Album of the Year for Taking the Long Way. As of July 2010, with 30.5 million certified albums,[3] and sales of 26,733,000 albums in the U.S., they have become the top selling all-female band in the U.S. during the Nielsen SoundScan era.

To suggest that this is in any way comparable to being shot for protesting against the Nazi regime indicates, I think, the most distorted sense of proportion I have ever encountered.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Chris7, you never did respond to my post here

I wonder why that is Chris7?

I wonder, does Chris7 have me on ignore? Or is he afraid of this post?

 

[Oystein]

1. You are ready to defend any nonsense, if only it is written by truthers, right?
To remind you of the context:
- Harrit and the bunch referenced Tillotson to compare their chips to his nano-thermite.
- Their chips had a much lower ignition temperature
- Their chips yielded much more energy and power
- Their chips have platelet stack structures much like aluminium silicates, Tillotson has aluminium spheres
Any sane person will count that as 3 dissimilarities out of 3 and conclude that Harrit's chip does not resemble Tillotson's nano-thermite in any way whatsoever.
Harrit and the bunch come to a different conclusion:



2. Any formula for nano-thermite must contain elemental aluminium (save for a few nanometers of oxide layer), and these cannot possibly come in platelet stacks. Any controlled preparation of nano-sized Al-particles will come in spheres, not in platelet-like stacks.

C7, what are the platelet-like stacks you see in Fig. 8?



You are assuming that there is only one formula for paint and there must not be iron spheres.



You are assuming that there is only one way for iron(-rich! When will you ) spheres to show up in a burnt sample and that this is thermite.

No reply to this = C7 concedes my points?

 

[sylvan8798]

Was Christopher7 the "concrete core" guy, or was that someone else?

 

[LashL]

I'm not seeing much in the last few pages of this thread that relates to the topic. Either get back to the topic - stat - or a whole lot of this thread will be purged and merged with the general discussion thread and/or AAH.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[000063]

Would Gage's last debate be off topic? Because I think it's notable that when debating Dave, he didn't even seem fazed in the slightest by the fact that the things he thought Dave had said Dave didn't say. That sort of reality disconnection is terrifying.

Has he ever repeated the famous box demonstration live?

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

Would Gage's last debate be off topic? Because I think it's notable that when debating Dave, he didn't even seem fazed in the slightest by the fact that the things he thought Dave had said Dave didn't say. That sort of reality disconnection is terrifying.

Has he ever repeated the famous box demonstration live?

If you mean where Gage drops a small cardbox box onto a larger one by way of demonstrating the impossibility of collapse of the WTCs then I have seen this live at one of his lectures. It was quite a jaw-dropping experience....

 

[000063]

If you mean where Gage drops a small cardbox box onto a larger one by way of demonstrating the impossibility of collapse of the WTCs then I have seen this live at one of his lectures. It was quite a jaw-dropping experience....

Also terrifying is all his defenders on Youtube who refuse to accept that a carboard box isn't a good substitute for a skyscraper, because of pesky little things like the square-cube law and cardboard not being anything close to steel and concrete.

 

[000063]

Okay, can the OT posts be merged into 9/11 CT General? Or The CD thread? Maybe we should just continue the discussion there, how about that?

 

[HannibalGroup]

I've seen reference to Jones refusing to release his samples for independent testing. Can anyone provide a source for this claim?

 

[chrismohr]

Videotaping Gage Rebuttals

Hi all,

I spent seven hours yesterday videotaping my Gage Twin Towers rebuttal. I could hardly believe all the great stuff I got from people on this thread. Wish I'd had it for the live debate. I remembered some of the individual posts where I got a particular piece of info, but it's starting to blur... just a general sense that a bunch of people helped me a lot, and my explanations and understanding are way better as a result. Even a Chris7 citation made the final cut!

Looking at the raw video right after, the big frustration for me is that I had to read a prepared text to get it all right, so I was looking down at my papers a lot. That's OK I guess, I'm not investing in a prompter, but it violates a basic rule of public speaking, which is lots of eye contact. But as we plug in all the hundreds of photos, videos and written reasons, it'll be OK, good enough for YouTube. It'll end up a series of YouTube videos, maybe 18 or so by the end, one on each subject.

I wouldn't dare suggest synchronicity to this crowd, but how perfect that at the end of the day, I dragged my exhausted butt over to a lecture by Michael Shermer from Skeptic (who's on a book tour). We had a great dinner together afterwards, and he's asked for an article about 911 for an upcoming issue.

So thanks again all. I enjoy this thread. I still have a few more sections to put together for Building 7, but it is wrapping up. I have a new YouTube account, Chrismohr911. Nothing on it yet, maybe in two or three weeks the first 12 parts at least. If "my" thread is closed for lack of relevance now that my work is coming to a conclusion, I'll follow along to whichever new thread keeps on.

Mille grazie,
Chris Mohr