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

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by bryan

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

I presume he means compared to Gages incorrect '6 seconds' estimation.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I presume he means compared to Gages incorrect '6 seconds' estimation.

That would be like comparing apples and oranges. What's long for a demolition might be short for a natural collapse. A collapse can only be described as "very long" if it's much longer than other comparable collapses.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by bryan

That would be like comparing apples and oranges. What's long for a demolition might be short for a natural collapse. A collapse can only be described as "very long" if it's much longer than other comparable collapses.

Well I'm sure that's what he meant. If you disagree contact him and ask.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

Well I'm sure that's what he meant. If you disagree contact him and ask.

It was you who started the thread in support of him. Do you think he's justified in saying that 16 seconds is a very long time for a 47 storey building to totally collapse due to fire, when no other tall building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

[marky78]

Some seem to be referring to the concrete slabs as if they are made of cookie, don't forget about the steel reinforcement within the concrete slabs.

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by bryan

It was you who started the thread in support of him. Do you think he's justified in saying that 16 seconds is a very long time for a 47 storey building to totally collapse due to fire, when no other tall building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

I actually provided it to show how weak gages arguments really are. I think compared to 6 seconds it a long time yes, again if you want clarity on what he meant ask HIM.

[wispy]

Some seem to think concrete is indestructable.

Don't forget that if they are composite floors the concrete slab is only designed to lie flat on the steel trough deck and are not self supporting themselves.

Once that support is gone, the concrete would collapse.

Although a more modern product, this show the types available and as you can see the concrete thickness varies from about 100mm to 250mm depending on the type chosen.

http://www.tatasteelconstruction.com...comflor_range/

[porridge]

Considering this was sposed to be a collapse & the mass was clearly seen being projected away from the building, proven by the lack of rubble in the footprint, it is very unusual not to see concrete floors & several storeys of core, no matter what the septic tanks try & CONvince us, or how many times they repeat the lie.

[rosie789]

Measuring the debris after collapse might not be an entirely fair test though because as the mass hit the ground it tended to spread out even more. If you watch the videos of the north tower, which had less mass above the impact zone, the building generally appears to collapse vertically with the lighter concrete dust lingering in the air and perimeter columns being forced outwards. I don't think anyone could come up with a precise figure, so anyone that says 'Oh it was 99% of the mass' is probably lying.

BTW: really wondering what sort of technology conspirators would use to make '99% of debris' be projected horizontally. I mean, what?!

Concrete has high compressive strength yet cracks tend to spread and it shatters during impacts.

[bryan]

Originally Posted by dontdrinkurmilk

I actually provided it to show how weak gages arguments really are. I think compared to 6 seconds it a long time yes, again if you want clarity on what he meant ask HIM.

So what you mean is: "16 seconds would be a long time to bring a building down using controlled demolition."

How does that help your argument?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by bryan

So what you mean is: "16 seconds would be a long time to bring a building down using controlled demolition."

How does that help your argument?

No I'm saying, Dave probably means 'it was a long collapse' relative to the incorrect 6 second estimation. Which to be fair, I don't think is all that wrong I mean 16 is more than double 6 so saying it was a long collapse relative to 6 seconds is ok, but if you have an issue ask Dave yourself I'm sure he'll be happy to clarify.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by rosie789

BTW: really wondering what sort of technology conspirators would use to make 99% of debris be projected horizontally. I mean, what?!

Is funny you just on about someone exaggerating in your book, on something that cant be proven either way & academics really shouldn't be throwing out but then you make this statement

[wispy]

Originally Posted by porridge

Considering this was sposed to be a collapse & the mass was clearly seen being projected away from the building, proven by the lack of rubble in the footprint, it is very unusual not to see concrete floors & several storeys of core, no matter what the septic tanks try & CONvince us, or how many times they repeat the lie.

Drop some rubble from a height onto a surface raised above grond level then I would expect some of it to project outwards.

So seeing debris being flung out from a mass of collapsing structure would be consistent.

What lack of rubble? There was rubble there. That it wasn't in a neat pile within it's own footprint as early truthers used to say doesn't mean it wasn't fire induced.

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by porridge

Is funny you just on about someone exaggerating in your book, on something that cant be proven either way & academics really shouldn't be throwing out but then you make this statement

I was just repeating what Richard Gage? said. It's not my figure. I wondered what the logic was behind it, what your theories were as to what sort of technology caused it.

[marky78]

Originally Posted by wispy

Drop some rubble from a height onto a surface raised above grond level then I would expect some of it to project outwards.

So seeing debris being flung out from a mass of collapsing structure would be consistent.

What lack of rubble? There was rubble there. That it wasn't in a neat pile within it's own footprint as early truthers used to say doesn't mean it wasn't fire induced.

What destroyed the last few floors, surely whatever destroyed them would stay within the footprint don't you think?

[marky78]

Anyone have any ideas as to why the hat truss was totally destroyed?

[dontdrinkurmilk]

Originally Posted by marky78

Anyone have any ideas as to why the hat truss was totally destroyed?

Did you see pictures that lead you to that conclusion?

[skanny]

Originally Posted by rosie789

BTW: really wondering what sort of technology conspirators would use to make '99% of debris' be projected horizontally. I mean, what?!

no mystery rosie... high explosives.

i'll let you into a secret but dont tell anyone ... explosives have been around for a while and their effects have been known for centuries.

maybe you should go look them up and prepare to be dazzled by the almighty power of high explosives.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by rosie789

I was just repeating what Richard Gage? said. It's not my figure. I wondered what the logic was behind it, what your theories were as to what sort of technology caused it.

Richard Gage said 99% of the debris was projected horizontally?

[rosie789]

Originally Posted by skanny

no mystery rosie... high explosives.

i'll let you into a secret but dont tell anyone ... explosives have been around for a while and their effects have been known for centuries.

maybe you should go look them up and prepare to be dazzled by the almighty power of high explosives.

Actually explosives have been around for more than centuries, high explosives are those which produce shocks at supersonic speed.

Who the hell would blow every inch of a building completely out of the sky? That is an almighty waste of resources and time. Can you imagine the vibrations/sound it would make aswell?