Participants in Coast to Coast AM 9-11 debate speak out

September 5th, 2010, by Shawn Hamilton,

Most observers consider the informal Coast to Coast “debate” between architect Richard Gage, chemist and scholar Niels Harrit, and physicists Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson to have been a success although who “won” depends largely on who you ask. The August 21st event, which was more of a conversation than a formal debate, explored what caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001. Gage and Harrit argued that explosives destroyed the buildings while Thomas and Johnson reaffirmed the official explanation that office fires ultimately led to collapses.

A few days after the debate I asked Thomas to give me his impressions. “I think Kim and I did OK. We certainly could have handled some of the questions better, but being on Coast to Coast is a bit like being in a pressure cooker,” he said. “There were several questions I had ready answers for, but never got a chance to squeeze them in.” Thomas said he doesn’t think he and Johnson swayed many committed “truthers,” but he also doubts that Gage and Harrit made many new converts either. “We gave people new to the debate a lot to think about,” he said.
I asked Thomas what he considered to be among his strongest points delivered during the debate. He responded, “The collapses themselves, captured on so many films, and without the sounds of explosions going off. Plus, physics insights from the models and experiments I did helped me describe the collapses. Yes, they happened quickly (12 to 15 seconds), but were certainly not ‘free-fall.’ There was resistance as each floor was hit by the growing mass of the upper section. I think the descriptions of WTC7?s long burning times and complicated and long collapses were productive also. In the final moments of the show, a caller really thought he had me with his statement that the cores should have remained after the Twin Towers collapsed, and I was able to inform him that they did, and that these briefly-tottering columns are called “SPIRES,” and that they’re well-known, and discussed on the NMSR website.” Thomas added that these spires would not have existed if thermite had been used to cut columns.

Architect Richard Gage accuses Thomas and Johnson of “hand waving,” saying they simply dismiss inconvenient facts. “They just don’t deal with the evidence,” Gage said. “I thought that on several points Mr. Thomas avoided facing very clear sets of facts including the free-fall of Building 7. He tried to explain that because the inside of the building caved out first, there was just nothing left so the rest of the building came down, denying that over fifty very rigid columns of the perimeter gave absolutely no resistance to the collapse of this building up above that—in this case the perimeter of the building is falling at free-fall acceleration. This is one example of a direct denial of reality, Gage said adding. “At this point I’m doubting his sincerity.”

Peer reviewed paper?

Why not ask where is the peer reviewed paper with Thomas and Johnson's and the government's point of view? Even scientists blowing hot air can't get a paper through a reputable scientific journal.

Zdenek Bazant et al...

Bazant's crush-down crush-up is considered the official explanation after the point of collapse initiation. It is not a viable theory but it is has been published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Read it here.

Anders Bjorkman's response to Bazant

Chandler's response on Scholars for Truth and Justice

By David Chandler on Sep 6, 2010

Responding to the paragraph:

“Johnson says of David Chandler, ‘He certainly does not understand Newtonian mechanics, and neither does most of the population—especially the Coast to Coast listeners who have their minds already made up (probably most). Most cannot understand the real details of why scientists at NIST use and trust FEM models. Few even have a clue as to what an FEM model is!’”
I make it a policy not to mud wrestle with pigs, but I got smeared anyway, and I wasn’t even a participant. Check out and decide for yourself if I understand Newtonian mechanics.

Just for the record, I do in fact understand what an FEM model is, and I also know why an FEM model can’t substitute for actual physical evidence. An FEM model (a computer model that attempts to simulate all the physical interactions between components in a system) contains exactly what information you put into it. If there is anything unsuspected in the evidence pile (such as explosive residues, for instance) you have a chance of finding it in the physical evidence, but you will never find it in the FEM model. Using FEM modeling as an excuse for destroying the physical evidence is fraudulent science in service of a criminal cover-up.



I have the highest confidence in your knowledge of physics.

I am so grateful for your contributions to exposing the truth through applying the scientific method and the immutable laws of physics.

Thank you David Chandler!!!!

What I do remember from the rudimentary computer classes I took in college oh so long ago, is the old rule of thumb "Garbage in, garbage out."

From Wiki-

Garbage In, Garbage Out (abbreviated to GIGO, coined as a pun on the phrase First-In, First-Out) is a phrase in the field of computer science or information and communication technology. It is used primarily to call attention to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process the most nonsensical of input data (garbage in) and produce nonsensical output (garbage out). It was most popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can spew out mountains of erroneous information in a short time. The actual term "Garbage in, garbage out", coined as a teaching mantra by George Fuechsel, an IBM 305 RAMAC technician/instructor in New York, was soon contracted to the acronym "GIGO".[citation needed] Early programmers were required to test virtually each program step and cautioned not to expect that the resulting program would "do the right thing" when given imperfect input. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable device: (end of Wiki citation)

Thanks shawn for posting this.