It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coast to Coast Sat 8-21 Richard Gage Debates Dave Thomas

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
ON RADIO RIGHT NOW!
9/11 Debate 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.




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
mistake. please remove thanks

[edit on 22-8-2010 by 21st century man]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
mispost

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Marrr]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Richard Gage is winning this debate hands down...Based on the powers of observation and understanding of physics. Ian is spending more time questioning Richard Gage's theories than questioning the official story or Dave's explanation of what happend that day. Ian is coming off as being one-sided in this debate IMO. Dave Thomas's arguements are coming off as weak...IMO. I don't want 9/11 to be an inside job but the truth is coming and we are just going to have to deal with it.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
This was a horrible debate. It shouldn't even be called a debate.

Almost everything Richard, and Niels was saying went over both of the opponents heads. They couldn't agree because they simply did not have any TRUE understanding of what happened, and actual science.

Dave was simply not addressing the points with any true understanding. He is a second rate scientist (if he can even be called one). He lacks all form of reason, and most likely much less intelligent than Richard. He was also annoyingly not familiar with the research material/documents of the opposing party.

I'm very annoyed that Richard was NOT given a fair debate, and Ian kept "endorsing" the view of Dave. What a joke of a show! Richard finally god fed up with this mess, and hung up (I do not believe it was "phone troubles").

With this being said I will state two points (I even sent these points to Ian via Fastblast, but he did not mention them at all). First of all, nano-thermite material has a very low ignition temperature compared to non-nano thermite material. The ignition temperature decreases as the particle size decreases. This is somewhat simple & straightforward material science. Second point, Larry was simply NOT referring to the fire-fighters when he said "Pull it." This is grammatically incorrect. Firefighters would not be called "it." If you're speaking of persons you'd say this: "Pull them." This is simple English.

I am also of the same opinion that most of the jet fuel would have indeed been consumed during the initial fireball. There was definitely enough air to ignite most of the fuel.

EDIT: Yeah, definitely, Richard and his side won. Hands down! It's very unfortunate that he was not taken seriously, and that his factual points were treated as false.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Serpent of Arabia]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I have searched the internet trying to find a way to listen to this debate and I had no luck at all in doing so without being a subscriber to C2C. If anyone can find a way for those of us who missed it to listen for ourselves, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Serpent of Arabia
This was a horrible debate. It shouldn't even be called a debate.

Almost everything Richard, and Niels was saying went over both of the opponents heads.


that was because they were babbling crap


They couldn't agree because they simply did not have any TRUE understanding of what happened, and actual science.


true, Gage knows nothing about science


Richard finally god fed up with this mess, and hung up (I do not believe it was "phone troubles")


he ran away as he was getting shot down in flames


Larry was simply NOT referring to the fire-fighters when he said "Pull it." This is grammatically incorrect. Firefighters would not be called "it." If you're speaking of persons you'd say this: "Pull them." This is simple English


wrong, he was talking about a firefighting team, which is an "it"


Richard and his side won. Hands down! It's very unfortunate that he was not taken seriously, and that his factual points were treated as false.


except he did not win, nor have any factual points, just his normal garbage



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

that was because they were babbling crap

Just as you are?



Originally posted by derekstrue, Gage knows nothing about science

False, and I was not speaking of Richard.


Originally posted by dereks
he ran away as he was getting shot down in flames

No, out of frustration. His points were not being acknowledged.


Originally posted by dereks
wrong, he was talking about a firefighting team, which is an "it"


Firefighter chief: "So what do you think, should we pull them?"
Larry: "Pull it."

Firefighter chief: "So what do you think, should we pull the fire-fighters?"
Larry: "Pull it."

No! This is not correct.

Firefighter chief: "So what do you think, should we pull them?"
Larry: "Pull them."

This would be correct. Honestly though, this is unknown because we do not have transcripts of what was said.


Originally posted by dereks
except he did not win, nor have any factual points, just his normal garbage

Sure, let's look in the mirror then? Where are your factual points? From what I see you've only posted garbage. You did not add any real value to this conversation.

------------------

Also, to be perfectly honest with you: I tend to automatically disregard the so called "points" listed by those that have only remedial English skills. Learning proper English grammar really helps to show that an individual has enough mental facilities to understand advanced processes & systems. It is a direct indicator of one's own intelligence. If you cannot learn English properly then I do not understand how it's possible to be "credible" when speaking of the physics & science of 9/11. I know my English isn't perfectly syntactically correct, but levels of correctness exist.

Yeah, I'm a jerk, and this is beside the point. I digress completely. I will most likely be flamed for this, and I know it will "hurt" my creditability. Oh well!


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Serpent of Arabia]

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Serpent of Arabia]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serpent of Arabia
With this being said I will state two points (I even sent these points to Ian via Fastblast, but he did not mention them at all). First of all, nano-thermite material has a very low ignition temperature compared to non-nano thermite material. The ignition temperature decreases as the particle size decreases. This is somewhat simple & straightforward material science. Second point, Larry was simply NOT referring to the fire-fighters when he said "Pull it." This is grammatically incorrect. Firefighters would not be called "it." If you're speaking of persons you'd say this: "Pull them." This is simple English.


First, if explosives of ANY variety had been used then it necessarily would have left signs of sabotage on the WTC steel, and there are too many photos of the steel taken during the cleanup of ground zero (not to mention, the hundreds of experienced steel workers who were at ground zero to begin with) that shows NO such sabotage- They're all snapped at the joints or twisted in ghastly angles before tearing like a piece of paper. Second, Silverstein didn't say HE "pulled it", he said the NYFD "pulled it", so either the firefighters were removed from a dangerous area, or you're accusing the NYFD of conspiring to blow up the towers and murder 343 of their own firefighters. You can't have it both ways.

This is neither here nor there. I didn't get a chance to listen to Gage so I don't know what was said, but if Gage concentrated his debate on the thermite hoax OR the Silverstein misquote, rather than the physics of the collapse, then this is a mark of a grotesque desperation on his part to back up his claims and his credibility isn't worth dog sh*t. This isn't showing the evidence. It's manufacturing the evidence and making it look the way an agenda needs it to look.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First, if explosives of ANY variety had been used then it necessarily would have left signs of sabotage on the WTC steel, and there are too many photos of the steel taken during the cleanup of ground zero (not to mention, the hundreds of experienced steel workers who were at ground zero to begin with) that shows NO such sabotage


I don't buy that for a second. I could show you suspicious looking pieces of debris right now, especially core columns that are all severed with perfectly smooth ends despite being formerly welded together solid at the ends, or the "meteorite," or massive columns bent like horseshoes with no surface fracturing from stress indicating it happened while the column was uniformly elevated to extreme temperatures.

And in any of these cases what would you do?

You would deny that there is anything wrong with the debris at all.

Being a so-called "debunker" is the easiest thing in the world when all you have to do is deny, deny, deny and play dumb at the appropriate times. And by playing dumb or pretending there's nothing unusual about a piece of debris, you don't even have to worry about addressing what the implications of it are.



Someone post recordings of this show please. I'm going to do a search and I'll post them if I find them somewhere else first.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

I don't buy that for a second. I could show you suspicious looking pieces of debris right now, especially core columns that are all severed with perfectly smooth ends despite being formerly welded together solid at the ends, or the "meteorite," or massive columns bent like horseshoes with no surface fracturing from stress indicating it happened while the column was uniformly elevated to extreme temperatures.

And in any of these cases what would you do?


I would ask you to show how these were destroyed by explosives rather than having been cut by acetylene torch during the cleanup. It is an irrefutable fact that ground crews used acetylene torces to dismantle the steel and it's likewise an irrefutable fact that steel destroyed by explosives would have a completely different destruction pattern.

It'ss regrettably also an irrefutable fact that truthers have an agenda to seduce people into believing there's a conspiracy afoot regardless of what the facts shows, and will deliberately falsify the dismantling of the steel by acetylene torch as being evidence of sabotage. Perhaps you can show me why I would take Gage's word over the words of the steel workers who were actually there taking the thing apart, particularly the ones who originally helped build the thing to begin with.


Being a so-called "debunker" is the easiest thing in the world when all you have to do is deny, deny, deny and play dumb at the appropriate times. And by playing dumb or pretending there's nothing unusual about a piece of debris, you don't even have to worry about addressing what the implications of it are.


This fits you more accurately than it does me. If even a microbe of what you're saying was correct, then it necessarily means thousands and thousands of people needed to be involved in the conspiracy and/or the coverup to conceal the conspiracy. This has constantly been pointed out to you truthers as well as Gage but you all steadfastly refuse to address it.

It's one thing to speculate, but it's another thing entirely to make your speculation fit into the real world. Don't blame me if you're trying to bring fantasia kicking and screaming into reality and it's not working out for you.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Paradigm2012
 


9/11 was the most indecent way to become involved in an oil rich "area" as I can come up with . It amuses me to see all of the overpaid Americans just shake thier heads and deny that we've done anything wrong. Greed rules the human mind.[period]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Osama is dead! If not where is he recieving dialisis treatment??? I have seen a vid showing sand ni... oops I mean Arabs shooting guns into the air to thier loyalty to osama. I have been consumed with the story of 9/11 and I am convinced that Jews/ Americans were to blame." It's all about the Benjamins Baby" 3000 US dead in return 350 million will support the raping of iraqi oil. Don't get me wrong I like cheap gas.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


So you must have heard the debate. Can you elaborate more on what was said by both sides, precisely?

I am in amazement that your post got 4 stars.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Dave Thomas makes misleading correlations and his calculations are invalid.

Dave claims the WTC Collapse was like dropping a bowling ball on your foot.

Well, no. If he wants to use such an analogy, it would be more like dropping 1 bowling ball on top of a stack of 9 bowling balls.

Dave seriously misleads his audience with such absurd claims. Apparently, most listening understood this as well.


Dave does not take into account air resistance in his calculations which would slow the collapse rate. The floors were large planks.

For example - Drop a piece of plywood on the ground broadside, it almost 'floats' before hitting the ground due to a cushion of air under it.

Such air resistance (or better referred to as drag), will slow the acceleration of the 'collapsing' floors, between floors.

Dave claims the top floors remained intact all the way down, ie - the mass of the top floors remained constant and accumulated additional floors. This is intellectually dishonest. If he takes into account the reduced mass of the top floors during the collapse, this also will lengthen the time of collapse.

Dave's 'pile driver' image is extremely misleading.

www.nmsr.org...

Here is what really happened.

911review.org...


Dave claims his current calculations are in line with the time of collapse observed on video.

If he takes into consideration all the variables, his collapse time will be significantly slower than observed, as will the forces and energy significantly reduced.

There is only one way to achieve the current collapse time/rate observed when taking into account all variables, and that is if the structure below were removed before the top structure made the "impact".

[edit on 22-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I would ask you to show how these were destroyed by explosives rather than having been cut by acetylene torch during the cleanup.


I didn't say they were caused by explosives, I said many of them had smooth cuts on the end as if they had never been welded together end-to-end, exhibited features of extreme uniform heating, and other "anomalies." The so-called "meteorite" is another one of these, like I just mentioned. Do you know what I'm referring to?

I know what torch cuts look like and that excuse doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of even 1 of the 3 examples of suspicious looking debris pieces I just mentioned. Torch cuts don't make "meteorites" and they don't make smooth horseshoe bends in massive columns either, let alone completely smooth cuts as if the column end was brand new. Not on columns of those thicknesses anyway.


You're one to be talking about agendas, being one of the most transparent members here yourself. You just ignored 2/3 of the information I referred to in my last post.

No wonder so many of you so-called "debunkers" deny that an official story even exists. To acknowledge it, you would actually be inclined to prove something of it.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Silvertein said in an interview, "They made the decision to pull it" You would never refer to a team or person as it. Instead it would be "They made the decision to pull them". But, alas, he said IT. Done, closed and beaten to death.


Edit to add, piece de resistance:

If Silverstein made an grammatical error and said "pull it" by mistake to the fire crew, then why would he make the same mistake in the interview. He meant "pull it"



[edit on 22-8-2010 by FlySolo]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Wow, this Dave Thomas guy should NOT be teaching physics... notice that it is at New Mexico Tech...

I quote:

As I see it, uh the uh, planes slammed into the towers, and the jet fuel - it didn't have to burn too long - it started some intense fires that were across an entire floor the size of an acre. Basically that made uh some of the floor trusses sag, and already some critical beams had been cut by the airplane explosion. So this pull down on the, uh, perimeter walls, the outer walls, and-and you can see this quite plainly in photographs. And I've got some articles on our website nmsr.org


He doesn't seem to consider that over 3 quarters of the building was still perfectly intact and sound. The plane simply could not compromise enough of the central columns in order for his pet theory to work.

A section of a building can collapse while the vast majority of the building remains functional and sound. Poke a hole in a screen, and the screen doesn't all of a sudden have complete and total synchronized failures...

The bottom of a building does not get compromised from fire ABOVE.

If anything, the top of the buildings should have fallen to the side, the path of LEAST resistance...

What pulverized concrete?! According to the OS, the floors pancaked... there is only, what, 20-25 feet(if that) between floors? Why would concrete turn to dust being dropped 25 feet?

He doesn't seem to consider anything that would challenge his kool-aid soaked brain.

To top it off: It appears he is not arguing for the OS, but for his own theory... so he should support a new investigation - but I think he is prey to the false dichotomy and slippery slope that has been set up around the issue. Supporting a new investigation does not mean you are a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Richard Gage's opening statements would be enough(I hope and pray) for anybody that is remotely familiar with physics to re-think what happened that day.

9/11 truth will end wars.

9/11 truth will end corruption.

9/11 truth will be a new beginning.

I will transcribe more maybe if I calm down a bit first. My immediate impression of Dave Thomas is
but I can't watch the next video right now... maybe he will redeem himself - I hope he redeems himself... but it is hard to redeem yourself if you are satisfied with the OS of WTC 1, 2, and 7.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Dave Thomas:

Basically, the uh, as those perimeter walls were pulled in, ah they got pulled in too much and they snapped, and that took up, it did not support enough load with the columns that were cut, and now the perimeter walls... uh so the upper sections in both towers started to fall. And for, uh, tower one, which was higher up, the top 14 or so stories, they fell about 12 feet... about 4 meters... and in that fall they got up to about 19 mph. And when they slammed into the next, uh 95th floor... actually you know since October, since Richard and I debated... I have sort of gone on a little journey of physics, and theory... and experiments... and have developed basically an explanation that accounts for things like time, and impact strength, and velocities, and momentum, and kinetic energy... and its really come together.



It has really been an interesting journey of, uh, experiments and theory... and everythings coming together, to uh, really, you know, produce a nice result that matches reality.. but basically what happened was is that first section slammed into the lower floors.. it got up to about 19 mph, it hit that floor with an impact of 30 times the static weight. And they built buildings to withstand 3,4,5 times... but not 30 times. And it just overwhelmed the floor joice and snapped them, and it slowed it down! There was resistance, it slowed down from 19 mph down to 18 mph, but then the next floor, it crossed it in half the time, because it was already going, not 0 mph, but 18 mph, got up to 26 mph - slammed with the weight of 40 times the static weight, instead of just 30... snapped that floor, got slowed down from 26 mph to 25 mph... speeded up to 31 mph slammed the next floor with an even greater force,



basically these accelerations were very brief, only a couple milliseconds each.. but they were, you know like 20, 30, 40 G's... at least 30 G's actually... Very brief accelerations... So one of the things I discovered, is there is one of the 9/11 truth physicists David Chandler, took a movie of the tower collapse, and measured it very carefully...


And I'm done for now, but as you can see, he is going with his own interpretation.


If you put a bowling ball on your toe, thats okay. But if you drop the ball from 12 feet, your going to break your toe.


No sh!t Mr. Thomas, but there is still a completely intact building underneath the bowling ball...




[edit on 23-8-2010 by beebs]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by beebs]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
well i too listened and i for one was /is wondering this; after the 93 attack the gold was moved to wtc7 not the frb, fed resv bank , were did that gold go? There is no mention of it after wtc7's demise. Did it [A] melt, was it move prior to the attack on 9-11[C] was never moved to wtc7 in 93. Could this be one big gold robbery?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by bekod]







 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join