Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

Why would they not? (not "floor by floor" but at the same time).

Yes floor by floor. If you have free fall you can't have any structure for 8 stories. If all 58 columns buckled simultaneously on just one floor the falling mass would encounter resistance not none at all. Why? Because the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q

 

[cooperman]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

 

[Thunder]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

welcome to the forum?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Yes floor by floor. If you have free fall you can't have any structure for 8 stories. If all 58 columns buckled simultaneously on just one floor the falling mass would encounter resistance not none at all. Why? Because the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

Let me guess, you haven't even read the NIST report have you?

 

[cooperman]

welcome to the forum?

Not sure if you are serious but thanks all the same.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

The north face fell at freefall for approx. 2 seconds, the core is a different story. See how easy that was?

Debunked. Run along now, tell Dick we said hi.

Oh before you go, answer a question for me:

Why did the buildings collapse?

a) thermite

b) explosives

c) space beams

Pick one, any one.

 

[cooperman]

The north face fell at freefall for approx. 2 seconds, the core is a different story. See how easy that was?

Debunked. Run along now, tell Dick we said hi.

Oh before you go, answer a question for me:

Why did the buildings collapse?

a) thermite

b) explosives

c) space beams

Pick one, any one.

Wow, you are quite confronting. I joined a few hours ago. Go easy.

First of all, who is dick? You mean cheney?

As for why the buildings collapsed, I have no idea. I just struggle to understand the period of freefall. No resistance for 2.25 seconds seems rather odd for a gravity driven collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

Yay, a new ball of string. But something seems so........deja moo??

Hey, why don't you put together your math, and all your expert calculations, and explain how NIST got their conclusions so horribly wrong, and submit it to a respectable journal.

I reccomend :

Journal of Structural Engineering

Journal SEI - IABSE

Advances in Structural Engineering

JOM
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/jomhome.asp

Any of the ASCE journals.

We await your abstract.

Thanks!!

 

[cooperman]

Yay, a new ball of string. But something seems so........deja moo??

Hey, why don't you put together your math, and all your expert calculations, and explain how NIST got their conclusions so horribly wrong, and submit it to a respectable journal.

I am not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I have just made an observation. I have never seen the 2.25 second freefall claim properly addressed, including in the debate that Richard Gage had on Coast to Coast.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Wow, you are quite confronting. I joined a few hours ago. Go easy.

First of all, who is dick? You mean cheney?

As for why the buildings collapsed, I have no idea. I just struggle to understand the period of freefall. No resistance for 2.25 seconds seems rather odd for a gravity driven collapse.

I am not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I have just made an observation. I have never seen the 2.25 second freefall claim properly addressed, including in the debate that Richard Gage had on Coast to Coast.

I hope the bolded part helps.

So why did you join JREF "a few hours ago".

Is this topic new to you?

If so, I suggest you read the NIST report on WTC 7. Then you'll understand what failed inside the building, what sections failed first and why the inside fell before the perimeter.

The freefall time you mention is for the north face, not the inner structure.

 

[cooperman]

I hope the bolded part helps.

So why did you join JREF "a few hours ago".

Is this topic new to you?

If so, I suggest you read the NIST report on WTC 7. Then you'll understand what failed inside the building, what sections failed first and why the inside fell before the perimeter.

The freefall time you mention is for the north face, not the inner structure.

No the topic isn't new. I have been involved with the truth movement since 2004. I have been reading here since 2007. Why shouldn't I join? Do you question everybody that does?


Are you saying the north face fell at a different speed to the rest of the building? Does NIST say that?

 

[beachnut]

I am not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I have just made an observation. I have never seen the 2.25 second freefall claim properly addressed, including in the debate that Richard Gage had on Coast to Coast.

Gage, he is a fraud who takes money to support himself as he spreads lies about 911. Who is dumb enough to send Gage money?

Go ahead, explain why NIST messed up. Explain why it took over 15 seconds for WTC7 to fall, and why parts could not fall at accelerations close to gravity. 911 truth offers nothing but talk and nonsense in the issue.

Please show evidence 911 truth has to make accelerations close to gravity impossible during the over 15 second collapse of WTC 7. Good luck, 911 truth only has delusions and no one has found their evidence yet.

Why does 911 truth have a delusion of CD?

 

[Horatius]

No the topic isn't new. I have been involved with the truth movement since 2004. I have been reading here since 2007.

Well, then, you should be aware that the mechanical penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building several seconds before the outer north face began to collapse.

What exactly do you suppose that earlier, internal collapse was doing to the structural elements supporting the exterior of the building just prior to the exterior's collapse?

 

[ProBonoShill]

No the topic isn't new. I have been involved with the truth movement since 2004. I have been reading here since 2007. Why shouldn't I join? Do you question everybody that does?

No, only those that show up 9 years after 9/11 and claim to be looking for answers, but are really just here to JAQ off, as you've proven already in your first 11 posts.

You've been a truther for 6 years and still haven't figured it out?

6 years, interested in the truth movement, but have yet to read the WTC 7 NIST report, that's dedication!

This a skeptics site, why would you join, you don't seem to be very good at critical thinking.

Are you saying the north face fell at a different speed to the rest of the building? Does NIST say that?

Read and learn:

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.

This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.
There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core.
The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm




Why are truthers always so lazy?

 

[tsig]

No, he doesn't explain how office fires magically removed the 58 perimeter columns simultaneously and continuously for the 8 stories that Gage pointed out. Instead he goes off on a ridiculous Argument from incredulity tangent on how unbelievable 9/11 would be for the buildings to be controlled demolitions. Despite being a physicist, instead of dealing with the physics he misdirects the discussion. This tactic would not work in a moderated debate here with me and this is why Dave won't debate me.

Fire weakened them then gravity buckled them.

 

[tsig]

Delusions of grandeur much? How is it the laws of physics have been violated?

If the Laws of Physics have been violated does Mother Nature get pregnant?

 

[tsig]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

I never knew vampires were Christian.

You want someone to explain to you why gravity makes things fall?

 

[tsig]

I am not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I have just made an observation. I have never seen the 2.25 second freefall claim properly addressed, including in the debate that Richard Gage had on Coast to Coast.

So you think that 2.25 seconds on 911 is the key to understanding the whole thing?

Plane debris, dead bodies, DNA, radar tracks mean nothing but if we could just explain gravity you'd be satisfied.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have noticed that the 2.25 second freefall evidence is, to debunkers, what a crucifix is to vampires. I have never seen them so scared. Nobody will address it. Ever.

The initial collapse of column 79 due to removal of support from the floors spanned about eight storeys. After the penthouses had collapsed, leaving a large part of the building as no more than a hollow facade with falling rubble and debris on the inside, that facade - also unsupported over a greater length than its design allowed - collapsed over a similar length to column 79, in an eight-storey buckle that allowed the upper part of the facade to fall almost without resistance over that distance. After falling through eight storeys, the upper part struck the remaining lower structure and accelerated from then on at less than g due to the resistance of the collapsing structure.

Nope, looks like the crucifix isn't working for you. Since we're all NWO Zionist shills, why not try a Star of David?

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

No the topic isn't new. I have been involved with the truth movement since 2004. I have been reading here since 2007. Why shouldn't I join? Do you question everybody that does?


Are you saying the north face fell at a different speed to the rest of the building? Does NIST say that?

Does NIST say the rest of the building fell at free fall?

No, they MADE THE DISTINCTION to say "the north face" fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds, and even give the reason why...Column buckling.

Nice try though...

TAM