28th June '12 Dave Thomas VS R. Gage Live Debate

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Thats only the second time I have ever listened to Gage Milky, but I will say can you show me any remnants of any floors from the WTC, the floor trusses would be nice. I cannot find one photo of any of them.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=b1_KGCpSHhA

Third time lucky, I would advise anyone to watch how when richard gets asked a tough question he repeats himself and cannot answer.

I don't think I would be to recogise parts of the building as they're smashed up and mangled at the bottom of the collapse. I'm sure they're would be plenty of concrete from the floors down there, albeit fragmented, surely you can't expect a floor slab to resist breaking all the way thought that collapse?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=b1_KGCpSHhA

Third time lucky, I would advise anyone to watch how when richard gets asked a tough question he repeats himself and cannot answer.

I don't think I would be to recogise parts of the building as they're smashed up and mangled at the bottom of the collapse. I'm sure they're would be plenty of concrete from the floors down there, albeit fragmented, surely you can't expect a floor slab to resist breaking all the way thought that collapse?

So you dont have any evidence yet laugh at Gage.

You promote some asshole who clearly lies too.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

So you dont have any evidence yet laugh at Gage.

You promote some asshole who clearly lies too.

Dave Thomas has models to back up his work, what does Gage have? Some cardboard boxes.

http://m.youtube.com/#/profile?deskt...oggyraff&gl=GB

Unless you can explain to me why 99 percent of the concrete in the floors would be 'vapourized' then ill assume they didn't and with good reason too.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Dave Thomas has models to back up his work, what does Gage have? Some cardboard boxes.

http://m.youtube.com/#/profile?deskt...oggyraff&gl=GB

Unless you can explain to me why 99 percent of the concrete in the floors would be 'vapourized' then ill assume they didn't and with good reason too.

But you clearly made a massive assumption Dont. Gage is going by the evidence at hand.

Like I said before, show me some sizeable concrete at ground zero or floor trusses & there should have been plenty of slabs left & large sections of concrete, this was a collapse after all you say.

Where's the mountain of rubble in the footprint?

[skanny]

Originally Posted by gamolon

You don't think windows take any loads whatsoever? Wind for example?

not comparable to the structure of the towers though is it?

if you claim it is .. how come skyscrapers aren't constructed using panes of glass in place of structural steel in entirety.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

But you clearly made a massive assumption Dont. Gage is going by the evidence at hand.

Like I said before, show me some sizeable concrete at ground zero or floor trusses & there should have been plenty of slabs left & large sections of concrete, this was a collapse after all you say.

Where's the mountain of rubble in the footprint?

What 'massive assumption'? So what evidence does Gage have to say 99 percent of the concrete was 'vapourized'?. 'Mountain' of rubble? Why would there be I wouldn't claim that.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

What 'massive assumption'? So what evidence does Gage have to say 99 percent of the concrete was 'vapourized'?. 'Mountain' of rubble? Why would there be I wouldn't claim that.

Show us some actual concrete then.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Show us some actual concrete then.

You're not satisfied with the rubble in the footprint why not? You after all did say most of the mass fell over the sides right? So come on why are you expecting to see more?

I can't its all fragmented, there's not many large concrete floor slabs visible, certainly not in any pics I've seen.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

You're not satisfied with the rubble in the footprint why not? You after all did say most of the mass fell over the sides right? So come on why are you expecting to see more?

I can't its all fragmented, there's not many large concrete floor slabs visible, certainly not in any pics I've seen.

Exactly, so what makes you so sure Gage is talking rubbish?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Exactly, so what makes you so sure Gage is talking rubbish?

99 percent vapourized? Until he has proof I'm not buying it, there some concrete visible in pictures I've seen. Not much because the larger sections that survived is steel, and this is the main component to the towers, so any concrete is going to be harder to spot at GZ. Why would all but 1 percent vapourize? Where has he got his calculation from?

Also answer my question about why you expect a 'mountain' of debris below, bearing in mind the towers were each 90-95 percent air.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

99 percent vapourized? Until he has proof I'm not buying it, there some concrete visible in pictures I've seen. Not much because the larger sections that survived is steel, and this is the main component to the towers, so any concrete is going to be harder to spot at GZ. Why would all but 1 percent vapourize? Where has he got his calculation from?

Also answer my question about why you expect a 'mountain' of debris below, bearing in mind the towers were each 90-95 percent air.

Why we been over this many times..

You admit most of the mass didnt fall in the footprint, but the surrounding area.

So what destroyed the the lower section of the building to street level & where's & the rubble pile to prove it.

Gage is right, there clearly isnt any concrete left, when there should have been large sections of floors piled up as there wasent the mass to break them up into nothing as witnessed. Just like there wasent the mass to destroy the core to ground level.

[ryanhodgson]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I'm not bothered if that is your last post today, you cannot understand what potential energy is, as that is part of the answer, you're just being ignorant of physics yourself. Gravity will pull a mass to the centre of the earth which is what happened. Once the columns failed they fell due to gravity onto the lower section, Which was not designed to deal with that dynamic load.

Is this your theory? Or someone elses?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by porridge

Why we been over this many times..

You admit most of the mass didnt fall in the footprint, but the surrounding area.

So what destroyed the the lower section of the building to street level & where's & the rubble pile to prove it.

Gage is right, there clearly isnt any concrete left, when there should have been large sections of floors piled up as there wasent the mass to break them up into nothing as witnessed. Just like there wasent the mass to destroy the core to ground level.

That's right the core was not destroyed to the ground as it stood for seconds after the collapse, the mass that was falling will find it easier to shear the connections and smash the concrete floors than destroy the core columns which is what we see, do you agree?

The concrete will be there in small amounts ill research later for pics or witness statements on concrete.

Originally Posted by ryanhodgson

Is this your theory? Or someone elses?

Yes my own observations, care to respond.

[ryanhodgson]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Yes my own observations, care to respond.

So you made up a theory.

A top 1/4 of a sky scrapper, can accelerate through the bottom 3/4 with virtually no resistance.

Then, even though the top 1/4 disappears half way down the "collapse", it can still continue to drive through the building with virtually no resistance.

Is this correct?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by ryanhodgson

So you made up a theory.

A top 1/4 of a sky scrapper, can accelerate through the bottom 3/4 with virtually no resistance.

Then, even though the top 1/4 disappears half way down the "collapse", it can still continue to drive through the building with virtually no resistance.

Is this correct?

A little bit vague, and 'dissapears' is completely the wrong word.

[mishy]

Can't see many big pieces of concrete in this picture...

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by mishy

Can't see many big pieces of concrete in this picture...

Never said there was.

[wispy]

Unfortunately I've not had a chance to listen to the interview as yet.

What strikes me about those who subscribe to the 'truther' narrative may not be getting their head around the concept that the towers were not acting like the monolithic solid blocks assumed by David Chandler, but a tube in tube design made up of lots of components.

In the 'monolithic solid block concept', if one block hits another, unless they shatter apart, there's more resistance to one block travelling on.

The towers were tubes with 95% empty space or thereabouts and designed to stand vertical.

Any tipping or falling is going to cause the components to flex and bend and the strain will break the joints and connections.

The FLOOR beneath the collapsing upper section,IE THE STEEL TRAY, CONCRETE SURFACE AND LIGHTWEIGHT TRUSS BEAMS, was not designed to CARRY the wight of the collapsing upper section.

Anyway, upper section falls thro this floor and at the same time the upper section is breaking up.

As it breaks up the debris does not disappear. It's got to go somewhere.

Yes, some of it goes over the side.

But a lot of it goes down thro the floor below breaking the floor supports with the core and outer columns, then falling onto the floor below breaking the floor supports with the core and outer columns, etc., etc., accummulating more debris all the way down to the bottom.

Given that the outer columns peeled outwards assisted in the collapse.

I really can't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

[wispy]

Originally Posted by mishy

Can't see many big pieces of concrete in this picture...

Thanks. You've just shown lots of external columns which demonstrate that they had to fall outwards due to the collapse.

What concrete did you expect to see.

Most of the support structure ie the columns were steel.

The floors were steel trough deck supported by lightweight truss beams with not very big steel sections.

There may have been other bits of concrete to the upper storeys but a lot of it went into the floors. The concrete to the floors from memory was somewhere in the order of about 6" thick.

Even if 8" thick. (approximately 200mm)

Working with some assumptions on storey heights as i can't be bothered to look it up at the moment.

100 storey building at say 3m storey heights that's 300metres.

100 storeys x 200mm thick floor slab = 20metres thick slab total if stacked on top of each other.

20 as a percentage of 300 is approx 6%

Rough figures i know, but therefore the combined concrete thickness to the floor slabs is approx 6% of the total height of the building.

Not much is it. Even if it was 10% it would be a small proportion.

And given that it is so thin relatively it will break up during the collapse as it relies on the steel pans and beams to support it.

Therefore at the distance that the photo was taken you won't see big chunks of concrete.

[bryan]

By what yardstick was World Trade Center 7 "a very long collapse"?