Magic, Mythology or Science?

James B. over at Screwloosechange recently commented on the debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr. James apparently thinks that Gage is contradicting himself by saying that explosives took down WTC7 but that thermite is an incendiary and makes no explosive sounds. From this, James concludes that this "magical thermite stuff" proves "trutherism is a mythology, not a science." Interestingly, James has brought up this issue before regarding the Twin Towers. What James still doesn't seem to grasp is the fact that thermite can be formulated as a quiet explosive. Granted, there was no "lack of sounds" as David Chandler has already demonstrated.



Explosions can be heard, but they are obviously quieter than normal explosions. But is this possible to accomplish with thermite? Well, as pointed out in the Active Thermitic Material paper, in April 2001 the American Chemical Society held a symposium on the defense applications of nanomaterials in which they stated:

________________________________________________________
At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. ________________________________________________________

The authors then go on to point out that:

________________________________________________________
The feature of ‘impulse management’ may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level. ________________________________________________________

This certainly doesn't sound like magic or mythology to me. All it sounds like is science.

So yes, thermite can be formulated as an explosive, but it can also be formulated to reduce the explosive sounds. Certainly those close to WTC7 might have heard these explosions, and it is those types of witnesses Gage references.

Gage has good reason to criticize Mohr for claiming that WTC7 and other demolitions "sound completely different,” because as the NFPA 921 guide points out:

_________________________________________________________
Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion.
_________________________________________________________

Below is an edited version of Gage and Mohr's debate where I have added comments and videos to address the sound issue and other points raised by Mohr.



Related Info:

Unedited version of Gage and Mohr's debate with visual aides and download link.

9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

2/25/11 Answers from NIST to Questions by Chris Mohr, Journalist

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was nice enough to help promote the "BuildingWhat?"campaign recently by posting their ad.


Pat, your strategy of posting their video to help out and then inspiring truthers to donate more by insisting that the campaign is failing is brilliant, simply brilliant, my good man! Your genius efforts have now aided in the raising of over $32,000!

This is just like when you claimed that NYC-CAN.org didn't reach the goal of 32,000 signatures for their ballot initiative when they actually gathered 80,000, while you also ridiculed the first weeks numbers of their recent fax campaign. You lit a fire under our butts on that one, helping raise the numbers from 133 in the first week, to 217 the second, 221 the third, and 408 the fourth! All the while, you downplayed our improvement and kept us striving for more!

Again, thank you for promoting our efforts to the uninformed, while also misrepresenting the numbers when we surpass our goals by miles, and for making us feel like not reaching overly ambitious goals is somehow a let down. You keep us inspired brother!

OK, now let's get serious.

Pat states, "LOL! The usual bit about how "nobody knows that another building, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed that day." I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory."

I'm not sure if Pat is really saying that it's false that many people don't know about Building 7, or if he is just saying that it's not surprising because in his mind it was a non-event. In either case, David Ray Griffin's essay "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight" debunks both of these notions. After providing evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was a "deliberately suppressed story," Griffin states, "...The collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: 'Building what?'"

The essay also addresses a perceived "logical leap" in the idea that conspirators beyond the 19 hijackers had a hand in WTC 7's destruction, Griffin writes:

I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent?

Here is an answer to that objection akin to Griffins by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT.


Pat states, "It is interesting to see more of a side view of the collapse (at about 16-17 seconds in), because it refutes Box Boy's claim that the collapse was symmetrical, and straight down through the path of most resistance."

As we've demonstrated before, this video refutes nothing.

Related Info:

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2

Building What? is up...

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense