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

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Peer reviewed papers.

Peer-reviewed by who?

All the JREF'ers peer review each other. No different than the Scholars group, except the Scholars groups have a lot more individual professionals actively contributing papers to their journal. And what is Mark Roberts' profession again? A tour guide?

ANOK was poking fun at all the 911myths references, because that site and debunking911.com are both sites put up by people involved in petty disputes like those you enjoy so much yourself, except on other forums. They're not credible at all.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Peer reviewed papers.

Peer-reviewed by who?

All the JREF'ers peer review each other. No different than the Scholars group, except the Scholars groups have a lot more individual professionals actively contributing papers to their journal. And what is Mark Roberts' profession again? A tour guide?

ANOK was poking fun at all the 911myths references, because that site and debunking911.com are both sites put up by people involved in petty disputes like those you enjoy so much yourself, except on other forums. They're not credible at all.

What makes the Journal of 911 studies any more credible than debunking911.com?

reply to post by nicepants


Nicepants ~

Thanks for posting Bsbrays post ( I have him on ignore for his childish namecalling) I would have said the same thing. I highly doubt any of the "Scholars" (which include dermatologists) have read any of the papers that have been written. In another thread, I posted a paper that was peer reviewed and being published in February. It is here: www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 23-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Haroki
I t is pure speculation on your part that the fires were burning at "less than optimum temps".

Just to add to this...A fire will almost never burn at optimum temps unless the conditions are perfect, which they pretty much never are unless the burn is controlled. So no it's not speculation, as it is expected that the fire would be burning at 'less than optimum temps'.

For example jet fuels burns at a max of 1000C (approx) but only in a controlled burn, in the open air it burns at around 300C (approx). A pretty big difference.

When a fire starts out with light smoke which then turns dark it is a good sign that the fire is starved of oxygen or burnable fuel, which causes a 'less than optimum burn temp'. If the fire starts out with dark smoke then it could be the fuel itself, plastics etc... Which do we observe at the WTC?
Why would the fuel source change? It wouldn't...

(BTW you guys seem to get all your de-bunking from 9-11myths huh?...)

My position is that it is misleading to say that the material was burning at less than optimum temps. No one knows for sure what was burning, when, or how much air was getting in. I could just as easily say plenty of air was getting in, judging from the big hole the plane made.

A better way to judge how hot the fire was burning is by direct observation of the flame color. Follow the link I gave a few posts back to T.C. Forensics (?). They have a chart of flame colors - chart 1.2 - that gives a much more accurate means of determining fire temps than speculating on whether or not they were air starved. Take a look and tell me what you think the fire temps are.

Also, flame temps don't address the boundary layer temps. On that same site, they have another chart that gives typical boundary temps as 600-1000C. The boundary layer is the super heated gas layer that gets trapped at the ceiling. Even at the lowest temp - 600C - steel loses 50% of its' strength. And even if we assume VERY low fire temps in the the 600C range, those temps are enough to weaken steel, when you take the admittedly assumed, but very reasonably so, estimation that the core columns had their fire proofing removed by 130 tons of 400 +mph shrapnel.....

Originally posted by nicepants
What makes the Journal of 911 studies any more credible than debunking911.com?

It's a good question, isn't it? Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. The best (or only) way to know something for yourself, is to learn the material for yourself. Become your own peer-reviewer.


I'll admit that the Scholars groups are biased, and so is debunking911.com and 911myths. In particular, Steve Jones' group seems hellbent on finding concrete evidence of thermite. But at least those guys are much less vitriolic and more objective with what they do.

Originally posted by Haroki
My position is that it is misleading to say that the material was burning at less than optimum temps.

This "position" is your way of trying to dodge the fact that those fires were under 825 C (sustained). Hydrocarbon fires in open atmospheric conditions max out around 825 C when the fuel-to-air ratio is perfect, and would produce little (or no) smoke, and it would be very light-colored and not black.

The fires at the WTC produced dark, sooty smoke. Jesus, this is like the 4th time this has had to be explained to you. Sooty is smoke is BY DEFINITION burning at "less than optimum" temperatures for a hydrocarbon fire.

How is that misleading? No one CARES if the material itself could not burn at 825 C to begin with -- that HURTS YOUR CASE ANYWAY!

The boundary layer is the super heated gas layer that gets trapped at the ceiling.

Sounds like you're referring to a flashover, or conditions that lead to flashovers. What do you know about them? How long do they last?

Even at the lowest temp - 600C

If these are the NIST computer models I'm thinking of, which model is it? Is it not the one where variables were ramped up?

steel loses 50% of its' strength.

Wrong. 600 C is the lowest temperature of the fire. The fire can be 600 C while the steel is still room temperature, and it doesn't heat very quickly at all. You know that steel is a good conductor of heat. If you really understand that, you would also realize that this heat would be conducted internally, in the structure itself, away from the source. Thus the entire structure is essentially an enormous heat sink. The steel has to be heated with a lot of energy over time, and this is what depends upon temperature and gross heat energy. A lot of both have to be present to heat much steel, and we're talking a lot of steel to be uniformly heated. Have you seen or considered the figures representing how much energy or power these fires would've had to have been putting out? Do you realize how big the columns are that you're implying, and how much heat it would take just to make one them glow dark red (600 C)?

when you take the admittedly assumed, but very reasonably so, estimation that the core columns had their fire proofing removed

Once again, this is totally unsupported garbage. NIST even showed exterior columns with fireproofing still attached only a few feet below being completely severed by the impacts. What has NIST done to support this assertion, anyway, exactly? Do you realize how biased you are?

[edit on 23-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ANOK

 

...I would assume you don't as well....

What I don't understand is that you will take something in MY words...

You Anok are not searching for the truth ...

Wow you assume a lot huh? Now I can see your problem, too many assumptions and not enough real world experience...

Actually I do have some background in engineering, 2 yrs City & Guilds of London engineering fundamentals (lots of physics, engineering principles, hands on metal working etc...), working in industry, qualified engineering drafter (board and AutoCAD), and six yrs in the Navy and high school. Not much but it's enough to have some knowledge of how physics and engineering works in the real world.
Actually you only need basic high school physics to understand where the physics applies and how the towers, if you believe fire did the job, defied at least 3 laws of physics. We've been over this argument for yrs and no one can explain the how they defied physics, other than stupid BS like the fire proofing was knocked off.

Anyway I'm not wanting your word so I can take them for the truth or not, I'm trying to show, and everyone else, that you really have no idea what you're arguing and can only parrot what 9-11myths is telling you. You're links do not answer my questions, if they did then it shouldn't be hard for any of you to answer my questions without just pointing me to a link, right? None of you have yet done that...

I've read your de-bunking sites and I know enough to know what's BS or not. I've never claimed to be here to find the truth, I know the truth. I'm here to try to get the ignorant to see the truth. Is that OK with you?
It's YOU who keeps claiming to be here to find the truth, which is laughable because the truth is right in front of your eyes and you are either too stubborn to see it, don't want to see it, or have other reasons...

I'll keep believing the tower were not collapsed by aircraft impacts and fires until someone can prove to me office fires can get hot enough to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail in an hour. I also believe that you won't, because you can't, because it's impossible.

Prove me wrong...

[edit on 24/11/2007 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Haroki
My position is that it is misleading to say that the material was burning at less than optimum temps.

Dude no fire is EVER going to burn at 100% efficiency, unless it's controlled! It just doesn't happen in the real world. It's a known fact, and you trying to deny this shows the extent of your knowledge, or your real agenda.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Haroki
My position is that it is misleading to say that the material was burning at less than optimum temps.

Dude no fire is EVER going to burn at 100% efficiency, unless it's controlled! It just doesn't happen in the real world. It's a known fact, and you trying to deny this shows the extent of your knowledge, or your real agenda.

No, I never said that they were burning at optimum efficiency, cuz I don't have any real way to gauge it. What I've been saying is that it's misleading to say that it burned at less than optimum temps- and ok, I'll modify it at this point to better state my case - for open air conditions. Cuz, like me, YOU have no real proof either way of how much air was getting in. Again, I could state that the big hole in the side of the building that the plane made, coupled with how flames were leaping 2 stories out the other side of the building shows that there is more than enuf air getting in for the fires to burn optimally FOR OPEN AIR CONDITIONS. Studying smoke is inconclusive, unless you know exactly what was burning. There's no way around that statement.

Do you have any links to typical burn temps of plastics, carpets, etc? I've searched and can't find a good source.

And I still say that a better way to gauge fire temps is to study flame color. Do you agree?

Hey, Haroki, what color is this smoke?




Do you need to know how much air was getting into the building to figure out how light or dark that smoke is?

Originally posted by ANOK


I've read your de-bunking sites and I know enough to know what's BS or not. I've never claimed to be here to find the truth, I know the truth. I'm here to try to get the ignorant to see the truth. Is that OK with you?
It's YOU who keeps claiming to be here to find the truth, which is laughable because the truth is right in front of your eyes and you are either too stubborn to see it, don't want to see it, or have other reasons...

I'll keep believing the tower were not collapsed by aircraft impacts and fires until someone can prove to me office fires can get hot enough to cause thousands of tons of construction steel to globally fail in an hour. I also believe that you won't, because you can't, because it's impossible.

Prove me wrong...

See this is where you are ALL wrong. NIST has provided a detailed report. It is up to YOU to prove THAT wrong. You can NOT prove it.

I am not sending you to a link. I am sending you to an explination. I have told you TIME AFTER TIME that I am not qualified to say who is right or wrong in regards to the physics and engineering involved.

What I have done, is extensive research on both sides to draw my own conclusion. I have done research including: talking to first repsonders, witnesses, victims family members, engineers, scientists, doctors, members of LVI demolition. Just to name a few.

I know the truth..... And I know who the ignorant ones are.

Please Anok, list the 3 laws of physics that were broken on 911, I promise you that although I may not have the answers myself, I have several freinds that can assist.

You have NOT read any of the papers that were written. They were not written for debunkers sites..debunkers just posted them on their sites.

So, just to recap Anok please provide the following:

1. The 3 laws of Physics that were broken on 911
2. Sections of the NIST report that are in error.
3. Proof that you have that supports your claim that 911 was an inside job.

And if your interested:

4. please list the errors in the peer review papers that were posted.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
See this is where you are ALL wrong. NIST has provided a detailed report. It is up to YOU to prove THAT wrong. You can NOT prove it.

What's all wrong is your understanding of science and of the NIST report.

Why don't you come back when you can do a free body diagram (for example) ?


Until you can do that, you're just somebody who likes shoving their opinion in other people's faces, while simultaneously giving them attitude. That's your turn on. It's what makes you feel big.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Please Anok, list the 3 laws of physics that were broken on 911, I promise you that although I may not have the answers myself, I have several freinds that can assist.

i'm not Anok, but you only need to 'break' one law of physics to be proven wrong.

a building falling with zero resistance from itself is 'breaking' the law of conservation of energy. if the only energy source is gravity, and gravity must do both the work of breaking the building, and pushing the material towards earth, then time(of descent/breakage) will be limited by the strength of the materials' resistance to the downward push.
so, if it takes 6.5 seconds for something to fall through air to earth with gravity as the only source of energy, then in order for it to fall faster, it would have to be pushed earthward by something besides gravity. perhaps downward facing rockets would do the trick. the speed(time) would then be limited by how powerful the rockets were. who knows, maybe if you put a lightspeed interstellar drive to force it earthward, you could get it down in less than a microsecond. however, absent this pushing force from above, you are limited to acceleration due to gravity, which is an ABSOLUTE measurable/predictable parameter.
now, as soon as you add a force of resistance to the downward descent of material being pushed earthward by gravity, the time must be increased in order to OBEY the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
for a STRUCTURE which is built to simultaneausly resist not only gravity's constant force, but also other major forces(hurricanes, auto shows, earthquakes, new year's parties), a descent time equal to the time it takes to fall through emtpy air means the building offered ZERO RESISTANCE.
that means all the extra work done, breaking things like girders and welds, concrete and drywall, wiring, plumbing, wood, etc....., is being done by ZERO ENERGY.

now, if you think zero energy can do work, perhaps this is the problem with your misconceptions about cover-up reports and and the accuracy politically biased 'scientists'.

reply to post by billybob


The question was presented to Anok... but Billy bob... what building are you talking about here

if it takes 6.5 seconds for something to fall through air to earth with gravity as the only source of energy

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by billybob

 

The question was presented to Anok... but Billy bob... what building are you talking about here

if it takes 6.5 seconds for something to fall through air to earth with gravity as the only source of energy

wtc7 fell in about 6.6 seconds.
once it went into freefall, that is. meaning all four corners of the building descended in unison at the rate of the acceleration of gravity. the fact that the penthouse started sinking before that has no bearing on the physics of the perimeter's descent.
the fact that the seismic trace was 18 seconds also makes it look more like a demolition than a natural collapse.

the first thing i said in my response was, "i'm not anok, but...". are you interested in truth, or winning debating "contests"? anok's laws of physics are no different than mine or yours. they're LAWS, for pete's sake.

reply to post by billybob


BB ~

The only reason why I presented that to Anok was his constant perseveration of the laws of physics. He has yet to state any of them that have been broken. I am not trying to "win" anything.

I don't know the damage that was done inside WTC7, I only go by what the witnesses there stated and by the limited photographic and video evidence. NIST is also still working on the reasons. Why did it fall so fast? well, I guess you have to determine how much damage was done by the falling debris and the fires that occured for several hours after that.

Again, until i see evidence that supports a CD, I will stick to the officail reports and the reports by those that were actually there.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


We've gone over and over on this, you are just playing ignorant for whatever reason and dodging my questions to you by turning it around.

Why don't you explain to us how the towers ignored the Conservation of Momentum and Energy? The lower undamaged portion of the buildings should have slowed the collapse due to resistance of the undamaged structure. When an object collides with an equal or higher mass object it will meet mass resistance which will slow the colliding object. We don't see this, we see a collapse that is accelerating as it falls with zero resistance. This cannot happen unless the falling mass had energy pushing down on it, or the lower structure was weakened in some way.

But having said that the top section of both buildings was exploding outwards and turning to dust as it fell, so there was no mass to crush anything. By the time the collapse finished there was no top section. Also why don't we see the top section sitting on the ground? What finished the crushing?

I'll leave it at just that one for now, there are others but like Billybob said it only takes one broken law to prove it wasn't a natural collapse caused by cool burning office fires.

Originally posted by ANOK
We've gone over and over on this, you are just playing ignorant for whatever reason and dodging my questions to you by turning it around.

No Anok, I want you to tell me (us) what three laws of physics were broken. I am not dodging anything.

Why don't you explain to us how the towers ignored the Conservation of Momentum and Energy?

Ok... here is one! Thats a start.
Momentum equals mass times velocity. As each floor collapses it adds to the mass of the falling debris field, thus increasing its momentum. It's like the ol snowball effect; it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it won't stop till it gets to the bottom. Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

The lower undamaged portion of the buildings should have slowed the collapse due to resistance of the undamaged structure. When an object collides with an equal or higher mass object it will meet mass resistance which will slow the colliding object. We don't see this, we see a collapse that is accelerating as it falls with zero resistance. This cannot happen unless the falling mass had energy pushing down on it, or the lower structure was weakened in some way.

I could be wrong, but the photographs and videos show the debris moving faster than the collapse. And please Anok, tell me how long you think it took for the towers to collapse. Again correct me if I'm wrong but if there is ZERO resistance...wouldn't that mean a free fall?

Once again... I do not have all the answers...this is not my field. I want to know why you ignore the many papers that were written. Again anok..instead of YOU dodging the questions.....

What have youfound wrong with the NIST report that goes against YOUR knowledge? HAve you read it?

Have you read the papers that I linked you to? Can you tell me what is wrong with them?

I am not the one pretending here.. I am not the one dodging..

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Momentum equals mass times velocity. As each floor collapses it adds to the mass of the falling debris field, thus increasing its momentum. It's like the ol snowball effect; it just keeps getting bigger and bigger and it won't stop till it gets to the bottom. Likewise, the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass equals one-half times the mass times the velocity squared. The energy of the collapse increases along with the momentum.

what's the difference between a snowball rolling down a hill, and a snowball rolling down a hill through two or three larger snowballs? do you think a snowball that weighs 3 lbs. will smash through a 3.5 lb, and a 4 lb. snowball consecutively while picking up speed at the same time? can a snowman's head powderize his torso snowball, and then his huge legs snowball, and at the end, will there be nothing left of the head that just decimated four times it's own mass?

Originally posted by CaptainObviousAgain correct me if I'm wrong but if there is ZERO resistance...wouldn't that mean a free fall?

freefall is observed. WTC7's walls. NIST cannot explain it. they gave up trying, and are now just giving everyone the runaround about it.
no one has explained it. some of the craftier shills have certainly given it a whack, with the idea that the building was severely damaged by the other towers' "falling on it", but, that is NOT seen in videos., and it continues to stand for many hours after the first DEMOLITIONS, so that is not acceptable as a cause.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob



Goofy! Perhaps the snowball analogy was not the best.

Please show me where NIST "Gave up" or retract that lie.