Richard Gage Debates a Member of International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators

Richarge Gage, founder of A / E For Truth on Monday night debated Mr. Ron Craig. Most of you know who Richard Gage is.

The following is a little background on Mr. Craig:

He's a bomb specialist and one of the few civilians who belong to the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators. He's also a licensed Class 1 blaster, qualified firefighter and a Jaws of Life practitioner — not to mention gunsmith, welding instructor and pyrotechnics specialist.

Also:

Ron is an experienced Special Effects Supervisor with over 20 years experience. He has worked on over 85 feature films, 8 television series and numerous commercials. Ron has worked on projects with major studios such as Paramount, HBO, CBS, NBC, and Warner Brothers. Ron is also an experienced instructor, university professor, member of the International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, and member of the Society for Explosives Engineers.

www.torontofilmcollege.ca...

A link to the debate is here:

911blogger.com...


For those that care about my opinion. It reminded me of a Boxing match along time ago between Mike Tyson and Michael Spinks. Tyson was supposed to have his toughest fight to date, only to see Spinks fall like a rock in the first round.

Well, Mr. Craig went into this debate against a man that has been praised by the truther community since the development of his website of Architects and Engineers. Richard Gage was no better than Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, and even Judy Woods. Or Mike Spinks.

His stuttering voice and typical recycled conspiracy theories were no match for Ron Craig. IT was the same old same old.

Even callers that called into the show asked him questions that caught him contradicting himself. I wont get into it just yet as I would like some of you if your interested to listen to the debate and give your opinions.

Thanks ~

C.O.

Thought I would bump this thread to see if anyone has listened to this debate.


Thanks

Man! Must be just like watching football! Or those feel-good rushes you get when your favorite radio air-head is foaming at the mouth at all the scum he loves to hate!

If there's anything of value in that interview, can you post it? I'm talking about new information. Otherwise, I must've heard it all already, and I'm not really into the ego-emotional pissing-contest thing, or whatever it is you do. I don't even know either of those men, and I don't really care what personal opinions they may have.

Has one of them analyzed the amount of energy it would take to shear all the trusses on a floor within 0.1s for a range of forces between the yield and ultimate strengths, or anything like that yet? Anything meaningful to me or anyone else here that looks for something besides an argument?

reply to post by bsbray11


Neither one of those guys did a paper like that, but here's one. Have fun......www.911myths.com...

reply to post by bsbray11


I agree.... Mr. Gage brought nothing to the debate. The reason why my post said this:

"His stuttering voice and typical recycled conspiracy theories were no match for Ron Craig. IT was the same old same old. "

I think Gage did reiterate many points that have already been made.

I don't think this diminishes their importance. I think they have been repeated because of their importance.

So you didn't hear much here that was new? Perhaps not. But there are probably a number of people out there who were hearing this for the first time. It was important for them, and that's the point.


The biggest beef I have is that it is claimed that damage from an airplane in addition to randomly placed fires brought down the buildings in a controlled-demolition fashion. If it's possible to destroy buildings with random damage and fire, then why do demolition companies prepare and plan for weeks, and use very carefully placed shape charges, charging millions of dollars for their skills?

Why don't demolition companies just dump a lot of kerosene in a building, throw a match in, and watch it come down if it's that easy?


What people who defend the official theory want the rest of us to believe is that controlled demolition can happen ACCIDENTALLY.

NO WAY!


And last but not least, the argument is made over and over again that in order to destroy a building that size using demolition charges would require so many pounds of them that the task would be impossible to pull off without being discovered.

...So then I ask you, if it requires SO MUCH explosive to tear this building down that it would be impractical to try and do so, then how the heck did the building come down with NO EXPLOSIVES?

[edit on 14-11-2007 by dionysius9]

reply to post by dionysius9


His points have been raised and explained a 100 times over. Tell my dionysius.... how did the explosives and the detonators survive the impact and explosion of a speeding commercial airliner?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I don't think they did. Fire would destroy the receiving units. Fire would not set off explosives. You need a blasting cap for that.

My uncle told me stories of burning plastic explosive in campfires in vietnam. It does not "blow up" in a fire, like you see in movies.

The surviving receiving units and their charges went off when the signals were transmitted to them, I would guess.

reply to post by dionysius9


The collapse started at the point of impact. How could the detonators survive?

pretty obvious, captain.
who 'won' a debate does not alter the truth. it only alters fence-sitters' minds.
"stuttering" is not equal to "wrong". i have a tendency to say, ummmmmmmm, and, ......... < pregnant pause > .........., a...a...a...a...and, sometimes i even st..st...st....st...stutter when i'm weighing every word against impending verbal assault by hostile forces in a broadcast situation. it does not weaken my argument, only my live radio debating skills.

i'm listening as i type. so far, gage is pointing out the most salient, unalienable anomalies that are the signature of a vast lie and cover-up. "repeated", "nothing new". maybe. but, how many times has the phrase "two plus two equals four" been uttered? is it less true because of the infinite repetition?

[edit on 14-11-2007 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob


Hi Billy Bob...

Please tell me what evidence he brought to the debate?

I was totaly NOT impressed with his debating skills and I honestly think there are some truthers in here that would have done a better job than he did.

Mr. Gage made a few errors and did contradict himself.

i'm still listening, but, so far, he's hitting all the right nails square on the head.

debating skills? like i said, WHO CARES about his debating skills. what is more relevant to "truthers" is the TRUTH, and, richard is nailing it, while his foil is spouting the typical debunking rhetoric.

molten metal is one of the keys to the truth shack. "flare ups" because of "exposure to oxygen" caused it? like, why would this cause temperatures FAR in excess of the hydrocarbon fueled fires which burned freely for over an hour?

ron craig's voice is shaky, like he's nervous and LYING.

Originally posted by Haroki
Neither one of those guys did a paper like that, but here's one. Have fun......www.911myths.com...

I take it you don't understand what you just linked me to. Greening's model is a simple mathematical illustration of the idea of a pancake collapse. It doesn't tell you a damned thing about what caused either of the tower collapses.

For example: he works backwards from the collapse times to find moment of inertia, so his results could still reflect a demolition, and he's just telling you what would have to have happened for it to have happened without explosives (what the equivalent moment of inertia would have had to have been, in other words). Since he didn't give you what I just asked for in my last post (calculations using the structural documents and the shear strengths of the truss connections, and their dimensions and yield/ultimate strengths), there's no way he can predict what the moment of inertia really was, or should have been for a realistic scenario of trusses falling onto lower floors.

The geometry in general is lacking in his model. He doesn't even take into account the core structure, at all, or the perimeter columns.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I agree.... Mr. Gage brought nothing to the debate.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. How old are you, CO? In years?

[edit on 14-11-2007 by bsbray11]

If I may, the following are some points raised about Mr. Gage's comments during the debate:

1. (minor point but we ARE dealing with the truth here)
Gage refers to the Park Plaza building in Caracas as a steel framed building that survived a massive fire. This is not true. It was a combined structure. It had a concrete “macro frame” every five floors with the intermediate infill floors steel framed (one of which did indeed suffer a partial collapse).

2. A contradiction he makes is that thermite was used because it has no distinctive sounds, that would have been picked up by every camera and video recorder in Manhattan that day, yet in the very next breath he insists that explosives were used that were powerful enough to blast the exterior panels into neat 30 foot sections and to toss them hundreds of feet laterally. Make up your mind sir, was it thermite of was it CD charges!

3. He claims that Marvin Bush's security company takes over security 6 weeks prior to 911. Not accurate.

Securacom received a contract to provide (electronic) security services for the World Trade Center in 1996. The contract was ended in 1998, however

en.wikipedia.org...
www.washingtonspectator.com...
also

Marvin Bush was no longer listed as a shareholder by the end of 2000.

en.wikipedia.org...

4. Made a claim that Bush wanted Willie Rodrequez to run for office unitl the Bush administration found out that Willie was a truther!

molten metal is one of the keys to the truth shack. "flare ups" because of "exposure to oxygen" caused it? like, why would this cause temperatures FAR in excess of the hydrocarbon fueled fires which burned freely for over an hour?

Wind speed increases with elevation, which is why top of hills are windy
considering enormous holes blasted into sides of building by aircraft
impact wind blowing through holes would fan fires. Ever blow on
a fire? The increased oxygen flow causes the fire to flare up.
Wind blowing on WTC fires would quickly fan them into blast furnace
intensity.

Originally posted by thedman

molten metal is one of the keys to the truth shack. "flare ups" because of "exposure to oxygen" caused it? like, why would this cause temperatures FAR in excess of the hydrocarbon fueled fires which burned freely for over an hour?

Wind speed increases with elevation, which is why top of hills are windy
considering enormous holes blasted into sides of building by aircraft
impact wind blowing through holes would fan fires. Ever blow on
a fire? The increased oxygen flow causes the fire to flare up.
Wind blowing on WTC fires would quickly fan them into blast furnace
intensity.

really?

then why were the temperatures UNDERNEATH the rubble pile WAY HIGHER than the pre-collapse fires?
that's the problem, see? the molten metal is UNDER the pile(oxygen starved), and the fires up above were not hot enough to melt steel(even though, they had atmospheric oxygen in an inexhaustible supply).
so, how did "pools" and "rivers" of molten metal come to be AT ALL!?

[edit on 14-11-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by thedman
…The increased oxygen flow causes the fire to flare up.
Wind blowing on WTC fires would quickly fan them into blast furnace
intensity.

You are making false assumptions based on your lack of physics knowledge…Physics, the key to the WTC collapse kiddies.

Air flowing through the 'hole' would not cause the fires to burn any hotter than they would in a closed environment (until the O2 runs out that is). Any substance burned does so at a temperature determined by how much fuel energy there is to burn in that substance. Temperature does not change with more fuel, or oxygen, added unless under very controlled conditions. The fires temperature does not keep going up no matter how much fuel there is.
A blast furnace is a controlled mix of oxygen and fuel to create a 100% efficient burn, thus maintaining the highest temperatures possible, not the same as a diffused flame in a common fire. Uncontrolled fires almost never burn at 100% efficiency, so the jet fuel would also not have burned as hot as its max burn temp of approx 1000C, which you guys so freely use. Jet fuel actually burns in open air around 300C (go check for yourself) so no where near hot enough to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail. It’s a physical impossibility, no matter which way you try to spin it.

So now you understand how fire works you should see that your assumption is not valid.

reply to post by bsbray11



Chapter 4.2 is titled Impact energy to collapse 1 WTC floor. It includes calculations for the core and exterior columns...... an estimate of 6.29x10(8)J is required to collapse one floor....... This isn't what you were looking for?

Originally posted by Haroki
Chapter 4.2 is titled Impact energy to collapse 1 WTC floor. It includes calculations for the core and exterior columns...... an estimate of 6.29x10(8)J is required to collapse one floor....... This isn't what you were looking for?

Look at it:

Unfortunately there appears to be no simple way to calculate E1 from first
principles since the collapse of just one floor of a WTC tower is an extremely complex process involving the bending and fracturing of numerous support structures.

In spite of these uncertainties, some estimates of the magnitude of E1, (the energy needed to bring about the collapse of one floor), have been made. For example, Z. Bažant et al. at Northwestern University, Illinois, have estimated that the maximum plastic energy dissipated by the collapse of one floor, i.e. our quantity E1, is approximately equal to 5.0 x 10^8 J. Unfortunately Bazant et al. do not give a detailed exposition on how this value for E1 was derived, stating only that it is based on “approximate design calculations”

The "design calculations" require the structural documentation, and Bazant did not have access to it. Therefore he was forced to assume a structure, and why wouldn't he assume one that fit his model (which already required some conditions that are unrealistic, like uniform heating of all the steel to somewhere around 600 or 700 C, and made other unsupported assumptions)? Either way, the figure isn't justified. The calculations aren't there. It's just asserted.

He goes on to cite another source that also does not give its calculations for its figure, and then says this about it:

However, it appears that Lee’s results are based on very rough estimates of the energies involved

So the implication here is that the figure came about from trying to work backwards from watching the actual collapse, which, like I tried to explain earlier, doesn't settle whether or not the buildings were demolished.

These authors have calculated the energy dissipated by the wing of a Boeing 767 cutting through the exterior columns of a WTC tower and report a value equal to 1.139 x10^6 J per column. On this basis, 2.69 x10^8 J would be require to cut through all 236 exterior columns supporting one WTC floor.

Here Greening (a chemist, remember) is comparing an estimation of the energy it took for the wings to penetrate (a shear load on the exterior columns), to how much energy he thinks this means the columns could've taken from a load falling onto them vertically. The two figures wouldn't be comparable. If he is talking about a shear "pull" from the trusses, then it first has to be established that you could yank a column out of place before the connection between the perimeter and truss would fail:



Which goes first: the column, or the connection?


And do you notice how he figures the first floor to fall? It isn't a first "floor," but the whole upper mass beginning to fall all at once. Now you tell me how that happens. The logical response is that it doesn't. If it's a pancake collapse, then the first floor to fail (if it can even fail at once, considering each floor was actually many trusses, but don't even worry about that for now!) is going to be just that, and the whole of all of the columns and all of the floors above aren't going to simultaneously break off and all just land on the next floor. The geometry of the buildings would not physically allow that.

Complicated calculations, while impressive to those who don't understand them, are entirely unnecessary for the understanding of the collapse of the twin towers.

Instead, I ask you to look at the picture linked below:

i226.photobucket.com...


On the left, we see a top section sitting on top of a bottom section.

On the right, we see a top section being suspended by a crane in mid-air.


Common sense will tell you that if you drop the section on the right, it will hit the ground at free-fall speed.

What common sense does not tell you is that the section on the left will reach the ground just as quickly, when the bottom section is in the way.

C'mon! Do you believe you eyes or what you're told?

See the following pictures:

i226.photobucket.com...

i226.photobucket.com...