• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How I Debated a 9/11 Truther and Survived - Dave Thomas

McHrozni said:
As retarded as the show is, I think this was just Romero misspeaking. He probably wanted to say it does burn long and hot enough to cause a structural failure, at least the intonation is right for that.

Of course with twoofers you never know. It's entirely possible he phrased it as a question, but spoke it as a statement to make it seem as if he claimed it was going to fail, but not state it, as not to be liable for lying.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

To me it sounds as if it's a quote mine. All this nonsense about "transparency" why isn't Ventura releasing all his footage unedited?

My bet is Van Romero said something like "The key question is does it burn long enough and hot enough so that we have structural failure" or something like that. With the gross misrepresentation and grand standing in that friggin show its no big stretch.
 
I really want to know the full story about that thermite experiment, anyone trying to get to the bottom of it? Someone said they knew they guy?
 
I just emailed Dave Thomas asking for a link to or a copy of the full clip, and I will announce when I have his answer.
 
Ahoy from Dave Thomas

Howdy there. By the time Orphia had e-mailed me, I'd already gotten signed up. I've lurked around the JREF off and on, and do appreciate the nuggets that sometimes blossom here. I gave a talk on Bible Codes at TAM4 a few years back, FWIW.

Anyway, the videos! The videos! Here's what I've told Orphia:
Let me check with the EMRTC folks to see if I can send these videos out. The Ventura show had Romero asking the question about the beam with thermite, "Will it burn hot enough and long enough to fail structurally?" The cheesy part of the Ventura show is that, while they gave the results of the non-thermite test (didn't fail), they only HINTED at the results of the actual thermite test, with Ventura leading the charge by asking "Any questions?" Of course, the question that needed to be asked was "Did it burn hot enough and long enough to fail structurally?" The answer was no, and there's a video of Van Romero proving that by smacking the beam with a hammer.

More later, Dave Thomas
Click to expand...

Anyway, nice to finally come aboard. I am teaching a class on critical thinking for physics at NM Tech, and today's class was on 9-11 physics. I've developed a nice little simple model that actually does fairly well with the twin towers piledriver collapses, getting very close to the results that Bazant acheived (What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), in press) with a very detailed model that includes beam busting, concrete pulverization, air pushed out the windows, etc.

I a junior, so I can't post hyperlinks as yet - you'll have to find these on your own. Cheers, Dave Thomas (not the Wendy's, and not a MacKenzie brother either).
 
Welcome aboard!

I've seen New Mexico Tech on TV a few times. It looks like a fun place to work. Just blow stuff up all day in the middle of the desert.

edit -- seriously, I saw their full-scale test of the Murrah Building bombing.
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Howdy there. By the time Orphia had e-mailed me, I'd already gotten signed up. I've lurked around the JREF off and on, and do appreciate the nuggets that sometimes blossom here. I gave a talk on Bible Codes at TAM4 a few years back, FWIW.

Anyway, the videos! The videos! Here's what I've told Orphia:

Let me check with the EMRTC folks to see if I can send these videos out. The Ventura show had Romero asking the question about the beam with thermite, "Will it burn hot enough and long enough to fail structurally?" The cheesy part of the Ventura show is that, while they gave the results of the non-thermite test (didn't fail), they only HINTED at the results of the actual thermite test, with Ventura leading the charge by asking "Any questions?" Of course, the question that needed to be asked was "Did it burn hot enough and long enough to fail structurally?" The answer was no, and there's a video of Van Romero proving that by smacking the beam with a hammer.

More later, Dave Thomas
Click to expand...

Anyway, nice to finally come aboard. I am teaching a class on critical thinking for physics at NM Tech, and today's class was on 9-11 physics. I've developed a nice little simple model that actually does fairly well with the twin towers piledriver collapses, getting very close to the results that Bazant acheived (What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York, Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008), in press) with a very detailed model that includes beam busting, concrete pulverization, air pushed out the windows, etc.

I a junior, so I can't post hyperlinks as yet - you'll have to find these on your own. Cheers, Dave Thomas (not the Wendy's, and not a MacKenzie brother either).
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, Dave, and thanks again for your prompt and cordial email replies.

I've saved my gut reaction to that email till now...

So the thermite didn't even weaken the horizontal steel beam, let alone render it "molten"?

:big:

It's as we suspected, but it's nice to see it confirmed.

I hope you can get the full video of the experiment, as that would add to the lulz, especially the factor where the truthers would squirm and spin. ;)
 
Waiting on NM Tech

Orphia wrote
Welcome to the forum, Dave, and thanks again for your prompt and cordial email replies.

I've saved my gut reaction to that email till now...

So the thermite didn't even weaken the horizontal steel beam, let alone render it "molten"?



It's as we suspected, but it's nice to see it confirmed.

I hope you can get the full video of the experiment, as that would add to the lulz, especially the factor where the truthers would squirm and spin.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I've sent a query seeking permission to release the video JESSE VENTURA DOESN'T WANT THE WORLD TO SEE! ;)

I'll let y'all know if it gets the OK.

Cheers, Dave
 
Welcome, sir. Glad to see you here.

BTW: Yes, the links prevention is in place, but it's not against the rules to leave off parts that would trip the autoprevent. For example: "You can see (topic being referenced) at cnn.com". That seems to work. Just leaving off the http:// and www. seems to work.

--------

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have any idea why Gage is so willing to take on opposition on TV/radio shows? My only guess is to popularize his AE911T group, but just getting signatures and site members isn't really generating any income for hm. Plus, it isn't exactly a risk-free method of gaining adherents; he could simply be interviewed or participate in non-argumentative settings and get the same amount of exposure. And lets be blunt: He didn't exactly cover himself with glory when he met Gravy (Mark Roberts, who's forum handle here is "Gravy") on the air. Anyway, the only reason I can see is to popularize himself and his group, but he seems to be choosing a way that would certainly backfire on him.
 
Here are the Videos!

They are on my Youtube channel, thegrizzledwizard.

I've sent Orphia an explanatory letter with the links, that I've asked her to post here on my behalf (newbies can't Link!)

Cheers, Dave
 
AWESOME.

I'm going to have to make a youtube video comparing that with the Venturas version.

So he actually filmed it all HIMSELF and then gave the footage to the production company? Is that why he has this footage?

This is pretty devastating to Venturas honesty really.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
AWESOME.

I'm going to have to make a youtube video comparing that with the Venturas version.

So he actually filmed it all HIMSELF and then gave the footage to the production company? Is that why he has this footage?

This is pretty devastating to Venturas honesty really.
Click to expand...


The three videos I've posted at my YouTube grizzledwizard channel were all made by NM Tech, EMRTC, to support requests made on behalf of Ventura's crew.

While the "Conspiracy Theory" episode on 9-11 indeed showed some of the tests, they did NOT show the concluding test (Romero and the hammer), which was left on the cutting room floor.

However, they were filmed at NM Tech by Tech personnel, and not by "HIMSELF" (if you mean Jesse Ventura is "HIMSELF").

If you mean "Van Romero" by "HIMSELF", that does make sense - Van had the filming done to support Ventura, and then Van allowed me to make copies.
Sarite?

Cheers, Dave
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
You missed one - the Romero comment after the thermite test!
Here's the YouTube code: d-pZf56L0lg

Cheers, Dave Thomas
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha! Thanks, Dave! I knew Ventura was gliding right over the "Did it fail structurally," part of that but it's hilarious to see the part that he left out.

ETA: Props to Orphia for inviting you to the forum and welcome!
 
Last edited:
Good work on the Gage nonsense, Dave.

And it's nice to see another Techie on these boards :)
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
The three videos I've posted at my YouTube grizzledwizard channel were all made by NM Tech, EMRTC, to support requests made on behalf of Ventura's crew.

While the "Conspiracy Theory" episode on 9-11 indeed showed some of the tests, they did NOT show the concluding test (Romero and the hammer), which was left on the cutting room floor.

However, they were filmed at NM Tech by Tech personnel, and not by "HIMSELF" (if you mean Jesse Ventura is "HIMSELF").

If you mean "Van Romero" by "HIMSELF", that does make sense - Van had the filming done to support Ventura, and then Van allowed me to make copies.
Sarite?

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave,

I am curious as to ...

1. Why Romero would trust that someone like Ventura could be trusted to not twist his words (like all truthers do) and...
2. What Romero thinks of how they used his footage?

I also also interested in that the quote "does it burn long enough and hot enough" since in the clip you showed with the hammer it didn't say "and hot enough" so was probably a different taken or from a different scene right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom