9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Check out "Coast to Coast AM" for this coming Saturday Night/Sundahy Morning

Check out a 9/11 discussion event rreaching a nation-wide audience

Hosted by Ian Punnett

Guest(s):
Richard Gage, Dave Thomas



Saturday August 21, 2010

Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Dave Thomas,

a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason will debate the
idea of controlled demolition of buildings on 9/11. Kim Johnson and
Niels Harrit also join the discussion. Hosted by Ian Punnett.

Views: 47

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on August 22, 2010 at 9:34am
I don't recall them talking about the buildings being reduced to BELOW ground level. I believe Gage made good points about there not being the traditional 12% height for pancakes (15 floors) and I believe his whole position is accurate about the whole thing being mainly dustification. Thomas, unbelievably, still believes in a traditional pancake collapse idea, and has done calcs. he says justifying it. I recall one of the real deal guests, Chuck Boldwyn, proving that this isn't even physically possible.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 22, 2010 at 9:29am
Thoth II: Here's one more argument that may or may not have arisen during the exchange, a new final point:

* Had the Twin Towers done the same thing, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes
equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were
actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot
have been any "pancake collapse" of either building.
Comment by Thoth II on August 22, 2010 at 9:25am
Jim

I'm afraid I couldn't actually appear on Real Deal, but thanks for the offer. You have my permission to quote me below though on the show if you want. I've got some personal issues that keep me out of the "limelight" so to speak, I guess I'm a believer in a niche for the "deep throats" of this world, although I'm really not a whistleblower in hiding, a govt. op, just an educated concerned citizen. If I didn't have these personal issues I'd have been working "above board" like you do.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 22, 2010 at 9:09am
Thoth II, my guest for Monday has not responded. Would you be available for an hour or even two on "The Real Deal" if he doesn't get back to me? We could use this as an outline to talk about Coast to Coast and the towers.
Comment by Thoth II on August 22, 2010 at 8:45am
Jim, I copied and pasted your points below and provide some comments (IN CAPS) about my recollections from the debate, it was about 3 hours long. But the bottom line is, Gage did a pretty good job of covering most of your points, and Thomas was as laughable as Wilks in his "pancake collapse" idea, plus he's really a late comer to this subject and I didn't take him seriously. But the real problem was Ian Punnett. Every time Gage made one of your points below, Punnett would poopoo it and keep pressing him not to focus on the impossibility of the official story, but to explain exactly what DID happen, which of course Gage couldn't do. That ruined the debate in my opinion. See, people like Punnett have the official story so impressed in their brain, that they can't imagine questioning everything from the ground up, and that came across in the way he framed the whole debate. Plus, I doubt Punnett even took a basic physics course in his whole life.

* Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first
fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the
South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than
some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned
as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from the steel.

YES, THE DEBATERS AGREED ON THIS . BUT OF COURSE, SINCE THOMAS IS ARGUING PANCAKE COLLAPSE, THE DEBATE ON THIS WAS MAINLY OVER WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH FORCE FROM THE FLOORS ABOVE TO KEEP "COLLAPSING" EACH FORCE BELOW; THOMAS ARGUED THAT HE DID CALCULATIONS AND THERE WAS ENOUGH FORCE.

* The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust
before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward
pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn,
moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as
one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

YES, GAGE MADE THIS POINT. I THINK THOMAS IGNORED IT, LIKE HE IGNORES SO MUCH ELSE.

* The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down,
since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project
manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were
designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with
negligible effects.

I DON'T THINK THEY ADDRESSED DEMARTINI AND THE DESIGN ENGINEERING ASPECT.

* The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the
maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees
under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233
had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

YES, I BELIEVE GAGE ADDRESSED THIS, BUT OF COURSE THOMAS IGNORES IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T NEED HEAT IN HIS PANCAKE COLLAPSE THEORY. HE JUST NEEDS ENOUGH FORCE TO KEEP PUSHING THE LOWER FLOORS DOWN, EVEN IF THEY WERE "STONE COLD".

* Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for
three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither
long enough or hot enough--at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one
hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to weaken, much less melt.

SAME COMMENT AS THE PREVIOUS POINT ABOUT THE HEAT .

* If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed
completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting,
which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition
that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any
"collapse" sequence.

YES, I BELIEVE GAGE ADDRESSED THIS, BUT THOMAS, AGAIN SEEMS TO IGNORE IT. THOMAS ARGUED THAT "IMMENSE FIRES BURNED OVER AN ACRE OF THE FLOOR, CAUSING FLOOR TRUSSES TO SAG AND PULL INWARD ON OUTER WALLS, AND SNAPPED, AND THIS TOP PORTION OF THE BUILDING THEN CREATED ENOUGH VELOCITY TO HIT THE FLOOR BELOW IT WITH ENOUGH FORCE TO CAUSE THAT FLOOR TO COLLAPSE, AND SO ON". IT SOUNDED LIKE THE SAME OLD BS FROM THE DEBATES BACK IN 2005. ONLY, THIS GUY HAS ONLY WORKED A FEW MONTHS ON THIS.

* William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to
leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected
extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the
sprinkler system.

I DON'T RECALL RODRIGUEZ BEING TALKED ABOUT, BUT MAYBE THEY QUICKLY MENTIONED HIM WHEN I STEPPED OUT FOR A BREAK.

* Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper
floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and
Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job," demonstrating that these explosions
actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

SAME COMMENT AS PREVIOUS ONE

* Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of
"pancake collapse," which normally occurs only with concrete structures of "lift slab"
construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers,
unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles
Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

THIS IS AN ENGINEERING DETAIL THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WAS COVERED. THIS WHOLE DEBATE WAS MORE OF THE SLOPPIER STUFF FROM THE OLD DEBATES, BUT GAGE REALLY IS DOING QUITE WELL NOW IN DEBUNKING THE OFFICIAL LINE.

* The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed
of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of
mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible
without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have
had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

YES, GAGE ADDRESSED THIS WELL. AGAIN, UNBELIEVEBLY, THOMAS, A PHYSICIST, IGNORES THIS AND I DON'T RECALL HIM TALKING ABOUT THE SHORT TIME OF "COLLAPSE", UNDOUBTEDLY BECAUSE UNDER HIS SCENARIO, THE COLLAPSE TIMES WOULD BE MUCH GREATER.

* Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where
their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to
sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the
government's account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

YES, GAGE ADDRESSES THIS WELL; AND THOMAS OF COURSE IGNORES IT, BECAUSE HIS WHOLE IDEA IS "PANCAKE COLLAPSE"

* WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein
suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it," displaying all the characteristics
of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own
footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of
pancakes about 5 floors high.

YES, GAGE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE THOMAS GAVE THE OLD "HAIL MARY" THAT THE GOVT. APOLOGISTS HAVE TO GIVE TO EXPLAIN THIS OF THE BEAMS FLYING OFF THE TWIN TOWERS AND SMASHING INTO WTC7, BECAUSE THEY REALLY CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on August 22, 2010 at 7:42am
Thoth II: I am going to post a recent exchange about the Twin Towers. How many of my points were covered?
Comment by Thoth II on August 22, 2010 at 7:33am
I listened to this debate, and as I expected, it was in some ways a repeat of those debates back in 2005-07. Ian Punnett kept pressing Richard Gage about "what did happen" and ignoring the physical impossibility of the official story. He just doesn't get it. The debate should have been framed over whether the official story is even possible. Of course, since Richard Gage didn't do 911, how could he be expected to know what DID happen?

And Dave Thomas impressed me as a complete joke. He said he teaches a course in physics at NMTech but just came across 911 truth 10 months ago! This guy isn't taking this seriously. And also, his whole position was the "pancake collapse", which is ludicrous from so many ways that were discussed by truthers back in 2007. First of all, there were NO pancakes at the end, there was fine dust. And the "collapse" (there was no collapse) was in free fall velocity.

The facts still remain, building 7 fell, massive towers turned to dust in 10 seconds, and the official story in no way could explain these physically. Also, it was assumed in the debate as a premise that planes hit the buildings, they didn't.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service