IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Dave Thomas , Neils Harritt , richard gage

Reply
Old 27th June 2010, 06:58 PM   #1
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Apparently Dave Thomas and others debating Gage, Harrit etc on Coast to Coast?

Not heard anything about this here, any details?




http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/...=270611#270611


Quote:

Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.

The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. www.coasttocoastam.com/

I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: www.debunkingskeptics.com

I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...hp?f=12&t=1220

Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.

Thanks,
Winston
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2010, 08:31 PM   #2
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
There is a thread where Dave Thomas mentions it in post #23.
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

Last edited by newton3376; 27th June 2010 at 08:33 PM.
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2010, 02:24 PM   #3
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,934
Coast to Coast? Only Aliens and John Lear listen to Coast to Coast; oops, I must be an alien those few times I have found John Lear spew BS about BS while I drive trying to dodge the Owls swooping into the highway trying to break my window late at night listening to woo.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2010, 04:16 PM   #4
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
You can not debate Gage. He refuses to answer questions and admitted to me that he does not have the technical knowledge needed to understand the NIST reports.

He promised me last September that his team of engineers will look at Ryan Mackey's paper (i hand delivered it)that proves the MANY mistakes of Gage's mentor, Dr. Griffin. He was also given by me a copy of Greg Urichs open letter to him. Once again Gage promised me a response, once again he failed to respond. Writing to him was a joke as he refused to respond to my inquiries. When he is unable to answer questions, his parroted response is the typical: "That's why we need a true independent investigation." The guy is a douche that is making money off other douches.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2010, 05:10 PM   #5
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
hahaha!!!

Originally Posted by OtherTruther
Originally Posted by Truther1
Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

...

But I am in contact with Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org, so if you have any messages for him, I could pass them along. I also correspond with David Ray Griffin too.
yeah congrats man it's a cool thing to put on your resume
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 07:40 AM   #6
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Dave,

The only person who will be capable of "baffling 'em with BS" is Harritt.

I'd suggest hammering home 3 points re: Farrer, Harrit, et al.

1. Why did they invent their own, NON-conclusive test methods (that just reveals elements), when there are cheap (about $70/sample), conclusive tests (X-ray diffraction, that reveals the pre- & post-reaction compounds) for thermite that are done routinely by qualified forensic labs all around the country (for arson cases)?

2. Not one of the Farrer, Harrit, Jones et al authors had ever performed a single forensic analysis for thermite prior to this paper. They are all amateurs in this specific field.

Don't let Harrit claim that his other, unrelated photo-chemistry background makes him an expert in this field.

The very fact that he - as the researcher with the most closely related experience - sanctioned the use of inconclusive (i.e., "incompetent") test method, when there are cheap, conclusive tests readily available, proves that he's not an expert!

3. Lots of scientific reports are simply sloppy &/or wrong. They fade into oblivion when others attempt to replicate them, but fail. Or, far more commonly, when real experts look at the report, immediately realize that it's incompetent, and simply ignore it. Which is exactly what has happened to Ferrar, Harrit et al.

So the true test of validity of any scientific testing is not the original work, but rather independent, competent replication & confirmation of the original work.

It's now been (3? 4?) years since Jones, Harrit et al began their "thermite chips" work. Where is the independent confirmation?

Given 1) incompetent methodology & 2) amateur status of authors, & 3) lack of independent, competent confirmation, Farrer, Harrit et al. is a non-entity.

Don't let him hijack the discussion into techno-babble. Move on to the next topic. Tell him to get back to you once somebody competent has published something that matters.


Tom

PS. The absolute, 100% proof that there was no thermite used is the complete absence of any "thermite cut" columns in the debris. All the columns were in their as-manufactured 3 story lengths. (With a small number of 1 & 2 story lengths immediately below & above the mechanical floors).

This proof has not been destroyed, shipped off to China, melted down, etc. It exists today in the tens of thousands of publicly available photographs of the rubble pile.

If, as Steven Jones has stated explicitly (see pg 23 of that doc or this video), a significant percent of the columns on every floor were cut, then somewhere between 1/4 & 3/4th of all the column remnants in the debris pile would have to have "cut" or "blown apart" into 1 story lengths.

None of these short stubs are visible.

All of these cut columns would have clearly visible damage to their ends characteristic of the cutting method used. If Jones et al had managed to cut a sample vertical column using thermite, you'd be able identify the cut from 20' away visually. Or from 1/2 mile away (with a telephoto lens).

I've poured over hundreds of hi-res photos from ground zero. I've not found a single one of the 10s of thousands of columns which has any of these clearly visible features.

Where are the tens of thousands of cut columns in the rubble pile?
Where are the tens of thousands of ragged melted or exploded ends?

Note that the above (IMO, conclusive) argument against thermite applies as well to any type of explosive.

Last edited by tfk; 29th June 2010 at 07:42 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 09:36 AM   #7
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Keep em coming!

Thanks for the tips! Keep 'em coming.

You can get an idea of my approach from the NMSR 9-11 page.

Cheers, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 10:09 AM   #8
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Hi Dave.

I don't know if you want to get too bogged down in the minituae regarding the Harrit/Jones thermite work - and really, I fully admit that doing so might open you up to a stunning display of BS from the other side - but just in case it happens, you may want want to peek at these two posts from a poster here named Sunstealer:... and you may also want to take a look at whatever Jones had written in response to it. I thought I read somewhere that he noted those analyses and said something in regards to it, but if he's done so, I don't know the details.

------

Also, as another avenue of information: You may want to take a quick skim of NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication. I say this because much is made of supposed "squibs" blowing columns, as well as Jones's own declaration of thermite being used on the same. Well, if you look at the stairwell diagrams in that report, you'll notice that on some floors the stairwells come quite close to the core columns. If those were honestly demolished via explosives or incendiaries, why did some people trapped in but surviving the collapse not be either blown to bits or burnt to a crisp? Truthers have never answered that. And yes, some folks were indeed trapped in stairwells when the towers collapsed.

------

ETA: I thought there were some posts around this subforum where we actually identified a set or two of trapped survivors and which stairwell they were on, and then went on to associate that with proximity to a core column. I swear I remembered looking over that, but I can't find the post(s). If anyone recalls, please post here. I'm not looking forward to duplicating that work.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 29th June 2010 at 10:11 AM.
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 10:52 AM   #9
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Gage claims to have helped design a large fireproofed steel-framed high-rise in Las Vegas. I would love to ask him why the steel-framed building he designed needed fireproofing if its true, as he claims, that fire alone cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed building.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 12:26 PM   #10
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Oh man, I cannot wait. Hopefully I'll have computer access on that day. Who else is gonna oppose D-Gage and the Truth Squad?
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 02:01 PM   #11
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Gage claims to have helped design a large fireproofed steel-framed high-rise in Las Vegas. I would love to ask him why the steel-framed building he designed needed fireproofing if its true, as he claims, that fire alone cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed building.
Personally one of the things I would also bring up are his case studies, specifically questioning why he compares buildings of different makes, and circumstances, (asserting that a concrete framed building should exhibit the behavior of steel framed construction and so forth).

Just my personal opinion, since these are the basis of a wide swath of his claims. It's an issue I'm sure if brought up he will have a difficult time answering to since no other individual I've spoken to supporting his theories has attempted justifying these comparisons.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 29th June 2010 at 02:03 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2010, 02:12 PM   #12
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Or possible just ask him if he can explain how scaling and different materials can affect proportional strength, and based on that, how he justifies the use of a cardboard box as a simulation of a 100 story building?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2010, 02:01 AM   #13
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,016
I just query how much you should be discussing this in public. Remember that your opponents will be reading this. They will have an advantage if you know what you are going to say or your tactics. I suggest those that will be participating in this debate do not give public feedback on what you think. So do not say that an idea is comedy gold if someone suggests you say something.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2010, 12:05 PM   #14
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I just query how much you should be discussing this in public. Remember that your opponents will be reading this. They will have an advantage if you know what you are going to say or your tactics. I suggest those that will be participating in this debate do not give public feedback on what you think. So do not say that an idea is comedy gold if someone suggests you say something.
I actually don't think this is much of an issue.....

JREF is a public forum and yet truthers are not able to come here and effectively argue the various aspects of 9/11...both technical and non technical.

No one from the truther side has shown why NIST is in error....no one has debunked the various critiques by many of the users here (Mackey, TFK, NewtonsBit, SunStealer, etc)...there are many more names that I am not listing that have debunked everything from fake audio and photos used by the truth movement to the "stand down" idea.

Not to mention the many points, debates, and arguments raised by Roberts over the last few years.

There are over 100 peer reviewed journal articles that support the idea that the towers came down due to structural failure due to fire, while the truthers have only one article and it is in an "open journal" or a "pay to publish" journal.

And the editor resigned over the admittance of that article.

The best the truthers can hope for is to bring up some obscure point that their "opponent" isnt familiar enough with to answer off the cuff and hope that this imply "proof" of an irrefutable claim.

So I would argue that it is the truthers who dare not show their hand, since each claim can be summarily dismissed with some research.

As for the "debunker" side.....when logic, science, math, engineering, and common sense are all on your side....you have a hand full of aces.
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2010, 12:25 AM   #15
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
rj,

I agree with Newton.

There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about with regard to "showing our hand". That's the great thing about science & engineering: it flourishes under full, open disclosure.

Oh, yeah, Dave. One thought that occurred to me a while back...

A repeated mantra of the truthers is "why didn't other towers that caught fire collapse?"

It's been explained to them in detail every which way to Sunday (the physical damage of the impact, the loss of insulation, the instantaneous massive fire, the lack of a working sprinkler system, etc.)

But a good summary statement is the following:

"In the absence of the physical damage of the plane's impact, a significant percent of the columns would have to come up to about 700C in order for collapse to occur. This is a tall order in a building with intact insulation & a working sprinkler system.

in the presence of the physical damage, a much smaller number of columns would have to only come up to only about 250 - 300C in order for collapse to occur. This is easy to do with the loss of insulation, lack of sprinkler system, & massive fires."

(This is, of course, due to the loss of many columns, resulting in significantly higher, abnormal stresses on the remaining columns. And, per Bazant, Le, Greening, Benson (JEM ASCE, vol 134, 2008), at the higher stress levels, fatal amounts of creep happen at very low temps.)

Tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2010, 02:44 AM   #16
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,016
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
rj,

I agree with Newton.

There is absolutely nothing to be concerned about with regard to "showing our hand". That's the great thing about science & engineering: it flourishes under full, open disclosure.
<snip>

Tom
The problem with the above is that this is not "science & engineering" it is a debate. You should win as you have the facts on your side. If this was a soccer match you should win with a score of 20-0. A win with a score of 5-2 would not be very good. I am just worried that they may work out how to counter something you say you will do on this forum. I mean you do not know what they will say, so why should you let them know what you will say.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2010, 01:30 PM   #17
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Just do what they do.

Point out their inadequecies, in both experience with the engineering involved and lack of evidence.

And then attack them.

Answer nothing.

Ridicule them.

It's ludicrous that you're gonna even distinguish these lunatics by debating them. Let them wither on the vine. Just like should be done with lunatics like Jammy.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2010, 02:07 PM   #18
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
A repeated mantra of the truthers is "why didn't other towers that caught fire collapse?"
Bring along photos of the Madrid Windsor hotel - it consisted of a steel-framed part and a concrete-framed part. The steel part completely collapsed.

A bit of advice is to not let them get away with the Gish Gallop. If you're on one point, don't let them move to another unless they acknowledge that the previous one has been dealt with. If not, go back to it. Force them to pick their best arguments and stay with those - otherwise these guys can spew out so much BS in two minutes that it would take you the rest of the show to address them.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2010, 05:17 PM   #19
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
Bring along photos of the Madrid Windsor hotel - it consisted of a steel-framed part and a concrete-framed part. The steel part completely collapsed.

A bit of advice is to not let them get away with the Gish Gallop. If you're on one point, don't let them move to another unless they acknowledge that the previous one has been dealt with. If not, go back to it. Force them to pick their best arguments and stay with those - otherwise these guys can spew out so much BS in two minutes that it would take you the rest of the show to address them.
God knows Gage loves that tactic.

And please guys, if he starts talking about explosives again, PLEASE make him realise explosives and sound don't work the way he thinks they do?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by Edx; 1st July 2010 at 05:18 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 11:42 AM   #20
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,759
From Winston Wu aka Scepcop:
Apparently, the paranormal blogger Michael Prescott wrote a critical post about my involvement with the 9/11 Truth debate, and declares that he is rooting for the JREF side on this one:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... -jref.html

See the ton of comments in his blog post. My response to Michael that I posted in his blog:
To Michael Prescott:

How much time have you spent researching 9/11? No one can claim that the full truth is known 100 percent. There are hundreds of unanswered questions and discrepancies and scientific impossibilities with the official story. Even you can see that surely?

Michael, just because the JREFers SAY that something is debunked does NOT prove that something is debunked. You as a critical thinker should know that.

FYI, the official fire collapse theory of the WTC has NEVER EVER been proven. Office fires burn at around 1000F while steel melts or softens at 2700F. JREF has NEVER been able to debunk that, neither has Popular Mechanics. They assume many things without proof.

More: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...=1220&start=20
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:17 PM   #21
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
This Winston fella pretends he is a skeptic but defends all kinds of woo, including David Icke, just so you know. He is a nut case. 911 Truth is just one idiocy he believes. He seems to have a particular dislike of the JREF if you read his websites debunkingskeptics
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:28 PM   #22
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
... and scientific impossibilities with the official story. ...
Such as?
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:38 PM   #23
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
Such as?
He is quoting Winston.

I replied on the forum....

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...p=15262#p15262
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:38 PM   #24
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post

FYI, the official fire collapse theory of the WTC has NEVER EVER been proven. Office fires burn at around 1000F while steel melts or softens at 2700F. JREF has NEVER been able to debunk that, neither has Popular Mechanics. They assume many things without proof.
You should trot out a theory that fits the available evidence better if you are going to say stuff like this, because the 'official fire collapse theory' is pretty much what the scientific and engineering world believe to be the best one.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:41 PM   #25
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
You should trot out a theory that fits the available evidence better if you are going to say stuff like this, because the 'official fire collapse theory' is pretty much what the scientific and engineering world believe to be the best one.
Steve is just quoting WU!
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 12:41 PM   #26
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
This Winston fella pretends he is a skeptic but defends all kinds of woo
And appropriately, his last name is...

Wu.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 01:07 PM   #27
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
He is quoting Winston.

I replied on the forum....

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...p=15262#p15262

Whoops. Too much reading woo crap, I tend to skip over colored font
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 01:19 PM   #28
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
And appropriately, his last name is...

Wu.
Winston Wu Woo lol
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 01:33 PM   #29
Kevin.Silbstedt
Thinker
 
Kevin.Silbstedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 172
@ topic:

In a german forum me and some folks (some of them Troofers ) collected questions for an interview with that whackjob Harrit. The interview never happend, but maybe someone could ask those questions in that upcoming debate.

If someone is interested and has trouble understanding german, I could translate that stuff. (For most debunkers, this stuff should be nothing new.)

But I already would be very happy, if anyone could ask the question, how the hell the igniters of those thermite charges or bombs could have survived the plane crash or the fire and if they didn't, then why does the building fell many minutes later and not shortly after the plane crash?

And please, if someone asks this questions, do not let go til you get an answer, that is at least possible. In the Hardfire debate Mackey vs. Szamboti this question was raised, but it was not discussed in further detail and they just moved on, without a good answer from Szamboti.

Last edited by Kevin.Silbstedt; 2nd July 2010 at 01:36 PM.
Kevin.Silbstedt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 02:22 PM   #30
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
God knows Gage loves that tactic.

And please guys, if he starts talking about explosives again, PLEASE make him realise explosives and sound don't work the way he thinks they do?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
After one of the statements that you have in this video Gage does half-assedly address why some of the explosives still were heard. He states that some of them were still heard going off because it isn't an exact science. So even though these explosives were made to be silent, some of them must have gotten messed up and turned out to produce loud explosions because again, "it isn't an exact science".

Of course this argument only produces more questions like how are explosives designed to be silent in such a manner that if they were to be made improperly or damaged in some fashion, would become loud explosives?

Originally Posted by Kevin.Silbstedt View Post
@ topic:

In a german forum me and some folks (some of them Troofers ) collected questions for an interview with that whackjob Harrit. The interview never happend, but maybe someone could ask those questions in that upcoming debate.

If someone is interested and has trouble understanding german, I could translate that stuff. (For most debunkers, this stuff should be nothing new.)

But I already would be very happy, if anyone could ask the question, how the hell the igniters of those thermite charges or bombs could have survived the plane crash or the fire and if they didn't, then why does the building fell many minutes later and not shortly after the plane crash?

And please, if someone asks this questions, do not let go til you get an answer, that is at least possible. In the Hardfire debate Mackey vs. Szamboti this question was raised, but it was not discussed in further detail and they just moved on, without a good answer from Szamboti.
I know a good Truther response to this from listening to Michael Berger debate on the Infidel Guy. IG asked this question and Berger just said that the type of explosives they used burned at a higher temperature than the temperature the office fires produced.

Also Jim Hoffman called in during the Gage debate Edx was talking about in his post I quoted and talked about redundant wireless detonating devices that would need to have been set up onto the columns and I wouldn't be surprised if those got damaged in the fires.

However I can think of an ultimate Truther answer and that is that some of the explosives were in fact damaged by the fires and impact of the plane. This would explain why the explosions that were heard did not sound like CD explosions (because they were damaged and blew up incorrectly) and why they were heard at sporadic times (because the fire didn't damage some of the explosives until later on when the temperatures grew higher).

I can see the major flaws in that answer but I still think that it could sound legitimate to a listener not well-versed in the subject.
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 03:23 PM   #31
Kevin.Silbstedt
Thinker
 
Kevin.Silbstedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
IG asked this question and Berger just said that the type of explosives they used burned at a higher temperature than the temperature the office fires produced.
That would just explain, why the explosif didn't detonate, but not why the igniter didn't go off and detonated the explosifs.

If you set an H-bomb on fire, their won't be a fusion of the Hydrogen, but the igniter would go off, which would detonate the explosif, which would shoot one part of the uranium to the other, which lead to the critical mass, which will ultimativly lead to the fusion of Hydrogen.
(Yeah I know, thats all to simple, but I just try to explain my point)

Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.

So either you have a bomb with an igniter, which transforms a radio signal into to high amounts of energy, capable of igniting the explosif, or you have a bomb without an igniter, which doesn't explode at all, because you can't ignite it.

I have trouble explaining that, but I hope you understand.

Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
Also Jim Hoffman called in during the Gage debate Edx was talking about in his post I quoted and talked about redundant wireless detonating devices that would need to have been set up onto the columns and I wouldn't be surprised if those got damaged in the fires.
If they got damaged, the WTC couldn't have collapsed (if you go with the troofies). But I can't imagine, how they could get damaged without setting off the bombs. In the second the plane crashes, the fire was there.

Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
However I can think of an ultimate Truther answer and that is that some of the explosives were in fact damaged by the fires and impact of the plane. This would explain why the explosions that were heard did not sound like CD explosions (because they were damaged and blew up incorrectly) and why they were heard at sporadic times (because the fire didn't damage some of the explosives until later on when the temperatures grew higher).
Some? All the bombs in the impact zone would have gone off, shortly after the impact. And thats exactly the spot, where the collapse began. So if there weren't any bombs or the bombs had gone off, how can the building collapse much later, if not due to fire?

Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
I can see the major flaws in that answer but I still think that it could sound legitimate to a listener not well-versed in the subject.
Troofies should just show us an explosive device, which doesn't blow off at, lets say, 700C and which you can still ignite 50 minutes later in a controlled fashion. The problem is, Troofers NEVER actually proofed anything, so I don't really hold my breath.

Last edited by Kevin.Silbstedt; 2nd July 2010 at 03:25 PM.
Kevin.Silbstedt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 05:52 PM   #32
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by Kevin.Silbstedt View Post
That would just explain, why the explosif didn't detonate, but not why the igniter didn't go off and detonated the explosifs.

If you set an H-bomb on fire, their won't be a fusion of the Hydrogen, but the igniter would go off, which would detonate the explosif, which would shoot one part of the uranium to the other, which lead to the critical mass, which will ultimativly lead to the fusion of Hydrogen.
(Yeah I know, thats all to simple, but I just try to explain my point)

Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.

So either you have a bomb with an igniter, which transforms a radio signal into to high amounts of energy, capable of igniting the explosif, or you have a bomb without an igniter, which doesn't explode at all, because you can't ignite it.

I have trouble explaining that, but I hope you understand.



If they got damaged, the WTC couldn't have collapsed (if you go with the troofies). But I can't imagine, how they could get damaged without setting off the bombs. In the second the plane crashes, the fire was there.



Some? All the bombs in the impact zone would have gone off, shortly after the impact. And thats exactly the spot, where the collapse began. So if there weren't any bombs or the bombs had gone off, how can the building collapse much later, if not due to fire?
These are all pretty legit responses. You explained it pretty well, especially the energy-radio signal bit. I should probably clarify that I disagree with all the stuff I wrote in that post, but I think that Truthers could get away saying this kind of crap because it would be harder to respond to. However I think you responded rather concisely!

Quote:
Troofies should just show us an explosive device, which doesn't blow off at, lets say, 700C and which you can still ignite 50 minutes later in a controlled fashion. The problem is, Troofers NEVER actually proofed anything, so I don't really hold my breath.
I can see Truthers saying that they need a new investigation so they can check and see if the military has designs for technology that complies with what was observed that day. Totally lame though.
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 06:00 PM   #33
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus View Post
After one of the statements that you have in this video Gage does half-assedly address why some of the explosives still were heard. He states that some of them were still heard going off because it isn't an exact science. So even though these explosives were made to be silent, some of them must have gotten messed up and turned out to produce loud explosions because again, "it isn't an exact science".
In the debate he says explosives were so intense it flung heavy steel away from the building and then says it was quiet because they used thermite. They can't have it both ways, either it was loud and intensely powerful or it was quiet and nothing was flung anywhere and nano thermite subtly melted stuff or whatever

But there is literally no defence they could possibly give to that argument Gage made.

Last edited by Edx; 2nd July 2010 at 06:08 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2010, 09:45 PM   #34
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,016
How Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and co could "win" the debate - Launch an attack on everything and everybody on the opposite side. Do not present any alternative case whatsoever. Do not present any evidence for anything. Demand the other side disprove what they say. If both sides then do this then Richard and co win.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2010, 12:14 AM   #35
Kevin.Silbstedt
Thinker
 
Kevin.Silbstedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
I should probably clarify that I disagree with all the stuff I wrote in that post
I know, if you were actually a troofer, you would ask, how much "they" payed me.

Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
but I think that Truthers could get away saying this kind of crap because it would be harder to respond to.
Szamboti got away with such crap and I often just hear from Troofers, what great technology the NWO has.

Originally Posted by knife fight colobus
I can see Truthers saying that they need a new investigation so they can check and see if the military has designs for technology that complies with what was observed that day. Totally lame though.
Yep, thats exactly the phrase. If they come up with that ****, make clear that it has nothing to do with technology. Every chemical reaction needs an amount of energy to start, therefor you need an igniter, which would surely blow off in the fire. It is that simple, but they keep ignoring that.

If someone from JREF joins that debate, please don't let them escape from that point. In debates Skeptics often just debunk the crap of the Troofers. Changing that would be kind of cool. Just let them debunk such basic problems, like the igniter-thing, or the missing sound, or the missing explosif residues in the dust, or the problem that thermite can't burn vertically through a thick steel beam (I actually never saw it happen horizontally) and so on.
Kevin.Silbstedt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2010, 10:14 AM   #36
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
rj,

Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
How Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and co could "win" the debate - Launch an attack on everything and everybody on the opposite side. Do not present any alternative case whatsoever. Do not present any evidence for anything. Demand the other side disprove what they say. If both sides then do this then Richard and co win.

This is exactly correct.

My best advice to Dave would be "simplify, simplify, simplify".

You can NOT discuss everything. Pick just a few (about 4) of the most important topics. That's it. Don't let them start with the scattershot routine.

Mirroring what rj said, IMHO, the biggest mistakes that debunkers make when debating truthers is letting truthers determine the topics. Then, it doesn't matter that you have compelling answers to their nonsense. You're still talking about their nonsense for the whole time.

Stop being reactionary. Be proactive. Demand at least 50% control of the time & topics. Beware the tactic of them bringing 8 people to the party, you bringing 2, and under the guise of giving everyone "equal time", they get 4x as much air time.

Spend the first half of the time giving the shortest, most concise answers possible to their questions. DEMAND that the second half of the time be spent with them answering your questions.

Keep a running tally for both sides of
1. questions asked
2. questions answered versus questions evaded with subject change.

Perhaps some folks here could suggest the best "big picture" questions.

I'd suggest the following questions:

1. The very cornerstone of the truther movement was "the towers fell too fast". This led many to (erroneously) claim that the lower columns must have been blown apart or melted. But in order for the building to have collapsed as it did (impact point down), each floor MUST have been blown in sequence. (As explicitly stated by Steven Jones in his debate with Leslie Robertson.)

Assume that, at a minimum, 10% of the columns on each floor needed to be compromised. Since each single 3-story column gets turned into multiple 1-story or 2-story columns, blowing 10% of the columns would result in 25% of the column ENDS in the rubble pile showing clear evidence of demolition or "melting". Evidence that would be unmistakable from the photos.

And yet, examining hi-res photos of Ground Zero or at Fresh Kills, photos available today, none of the column ends show such evidence.

The absence of blown apart or melted ends PROVES beyond doubt that the columns were not blown apart.

(Don't let them suggest that the blown apart columns were buried. They would have been uncovered as the debris removal progressed. There are photos of the entire removal process. No such columns were uncovered.)

2. No melted steel. In a similar fashion, IF steel had melted, there should have been many columns that transitioned from fully formed box columns or I beams into puddles. I have not seen one photo that showed such a transition. The famous "swiss cheese" WPI I-beam was corroded, NOT melted. Although greatly thinned, it still retained its I-beam shape.

A partly melted beam would have retained its original shape away from the melt line, and then globally "slumped" in a transition to a puddle of steel. And then, if left alone until it solidified, you would have had hundreds (or more) beams that looked like spoons. With well defined original sections (the handle) transitioning to large, spread out, irregular "bowls".

There are uncounted photos of the beams, both at GZ & at Fresh Kills (where they were stacked). No beams (that I've seen) show this unmistakable shape.

Note well that one, two, 10 or 50 "melted columns" (even if found) are irrelevant. In order for "melted steel columns" to have played any role in the collapse of the building, you'd have to show thousands of these melted columns.

Just my suggestions...

Tom

PS. When is this broadcast scheduled?

Last edited by tfk; 4th July 2010 at 10:16 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2010, 11:02 AM   #37
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
BTW, when setting one's expectations about the outcome of this broadcast, and the effort that it deserves, one must consider the audience.

This is not going to be a PBS / BBC "Meeting of the Minds" caliber audience. It is preselected to be regular "Coast-to-Coast" listeners.

That means folks who come back week after week after week for their minimum required dosage of big foot, alien abductions and 9/11 conspiracy.

Don't expect a warm welcome or many converts.

Tom

PS. Perhaps this is the best news to come out of this: the venues to which Richard Gage is reduced. Following Bigfoot.

Of course, Gage has now found his preferred milieu: traveling the world, absolving murderous, self-confessed terrorists & telling folk everywhere that "the US Gubbamint dunnit".

If there were one ounce of evidence for his clap-trap, then he might not be a traitorous putz.

Last edited by tfk; 4th July 2010 at 11:08 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2010, 11:19 AM   #38
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,182
Originally Posted by Kevin.Silbstedt View Post
...
Point is, if you want to detonate the bombs in the WTC, you need an igniter, which blows off, when it gets enough energy (aka the signal). Troofers are talking about a wireless demolition, which means that a radiosignal is capable igniting the bombs, which is not really much energy. If a radio signal is capable off blowing off the igniter, then a plane full of exploding kerosene is at any rate.
...
No, actually, even it that seems plausible to the layman, it really isn't so.
Different explosives have different porperties with regard to ignition. Some can be ignited by fire (temperature), some by electric spark, some by shock (hammer), some only by extreme shock (other high explosives). Some will just burn peacefully away when involved in a fire and not explode.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 12:20 AM   #39
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
BTW, when setting one's expectations about the outcome of this broadcast, and the effort that it deserves, one must consider the audience.

This is not going to be a PBS / BBC "Meeting of the Minds" caliber audience. It is preselected to be regular "Coast-to-Coast" listeners.

That means folks who come back week after week after week for their minimum required dosage of big foot, alien abductions and 9/11 conspiracy.

Don't expect a warm welcome or many converts.

Tom

PS. Perhaps this is the best news to come out of this: the venues to which Richard Gage is reduced. Following Bigfoot.

Of course, Gage has now found his preferred milieu: traveling the world, absolving murderous, self-confessed terrorists & telling folk everywhere that "the US Gubbamint dunnit".

If there were one ounce of evidence for his clap-trap, then he might not be a traitorous putz.
This is true....the truth "movement" for all intents and purposes is dead.

Every major truther question has been answered and every major truther point addressed.

We are going on 9 years since the WTC collapses and all they can muster with their "over 1,000 architects and engineers" is one questionable paper in a vanity journal.

Assuming they do as poorly in the debate with Thomas as they did in every hardfire debate, I'm not sure what is left to say......they are in the same category as the Moon landing hoaxers and Holocaust deniers.....fit to be ignored or mocked.
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 06:58 AM   #40
Kevin.Silbstedt
Thinker
 
Kevin.Silbstedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No, actually, even it that seems plausible to the layman, it really isn't so.
Different explosives have different porperties with regard to ignition. Some can be ignited by fire (temperature), some by electric spark, some by shock (hammer), some only by extreme shock (other high explosives). Some will just burn peacefully away when involved in a fire and not explode.
I didn't directly talk about the bomb (I was aware of the fact, that there are different igniters, but not in detail), I talked about the igniter. My position was that, if a plane full of kerosene flies in a bomb, well then either the igniter goes off and the bomb explodes or the bomb simply gets destroyed before the igniter is able to ignite the bomb.

Either way, the CD fantasy is completly impossible, because after the crash, there couldn't have been a working bomb anywhere near the impact zone, where the buildings later collapsed.

I'm no controlled demolition expert, but Jowenko seems to know the basics of CD, even if he has no qualification in blowing up high rises:

Originally Posted by Jowenko
It cant have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. Whats more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off... at 320 Grad Celsius, so theyd have detonated sooner.
If you have better sources, then go ahead and post them.
Kevin.Silbstedt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.