• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Dave Thomas

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.

So, you have been involved with the TM since 2004 and have no idea why the buildings collapsed? Also, since you think the period of freefall is odd for a gravity driven collapse, would you agree that a CD is ruled out?
 
Fire weakened them then gravity buckled them.

Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE left to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.


Has it ever occurred to you that they might have buckled just prior to the period of freefall?

You do realize that this period you've been going on about occurred sometime after the initiation of the collapse, don't you?
 
Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

The energy came from gravity. Firstly, the perimeter columns buckled over several storeys. Once they'd buckled, the resistance they offered to the falling building was very small. The near-freefall period came after the buckling had reduced the structural strength of the columns to a negligible amount; the GPE needed to buckle the columns had already been supplied.

Dave
 
Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

I'm not even going to touch that ridiculous butchering of physics.

You can stick to your reality where all 58 columns buckled at the same time. Meanwhile, in this one, we'll continue on just fine.
 
Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

I love it when a non-expert calls a group of experts crackpots...more reflective of the name caller rather then the recipient, actually.

TAM
 
Has it ever occurred to you that they might have buckled just prior to the period of freefall?

You do realize that this period you've been going on about occurred sometime after the initiation of the collapse, don't you?

No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C7's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.:jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C7's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.:jaw-dropp
You are not a crackpot, your cd delusion is a crackpot idea. :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

You are not a crackpot, you have no skills in physics.

You are not a crackpot, you have no evidence for your cd delusion.
 
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
So in your opinion a multi-storey buckle is not possible?
 
No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.:jaw-dropp

The columns are what prevent the building from falling. It begins falling when the columns buckle. This buckling is a discrete event. It does not occur simultaneously throughout the structure. It occurs one at a time. However, when one column buckles, load is retributed to adjacent columns. This redistribution is nearly instantaneous. This redistribution is also not a zero-sum event. If one column held up, for example, 500,000lb of weight and buckles, this weight is spread to adjacent columns but there are additional forces that develop in order to keep the structure in equilibrium. These forces are generally several times the original weight of 500,000lb. Most buildings can effectively resist a single column failure without collapsing. However not all can, see the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

If a column buckles elastically, which means it bends smoothly across it's entire length, very little energy is required to continue forcing it to deflect out and down. For an A36 wide-flange, the column must have a slenderness ratio of 134 or higher to buckle elastically. The slenderness ratio of the columns that buckled in WTC7 were over double that value. This is so high that modern building codes do not allow an engineer to design a compression element to resist any forces as it is prone to collapsing due to very slight amounts of sway.

If you want to know what the chain events that led up to 8-story unsupported columns, please see the NIST report on WTC7.
 
cmatrix:
You seem to be under the impression a multi-storey buckle is not possible. Why's that? You claim to have some kind of superior knowledge, please explain this insight.

Bet you your 5 g's you can't.
 
Regarding the question about moderated debate threads, what we can do - if requested and if both parties agree - is set up a moderated thread permitting only the agreed two participants to post, but there are preliminary steps that need to be taken first.

1) One party to the debate must make a formal request to the Moderating Team seeking a moderated debate thread between two parties and the other party must agree to participate in same;
2) The request must set out the proposed topic and the scope of the debate, both of which must be agreed to by the parties;
3) Any additional rules that the parties seek to impose will have to be agreed upon (For instance: which party posts first; posts to alternate between the parties; length/time limits (if any) that the parties wish to impose, etc.

The Moderating Team will then consider the request and, if approved, will set up the thread. **Please note that all of the rules in the Membership Agreement will apply and the parties will be expected to abide by them. If the parties cannot conduct themselves without breaching the M.A., the thread will be closed.
Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited:
No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C7's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.:jaw-dropp

So, was it thermite or explosives?
 
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.

Do all debunkers agree with the explanation that the Physicist Dave Thomas publicly gave for the 2.25 seconds freefall in WTC7 ? Hear it again at the 12:08 mark in the attached part 11 of the coast to coast debate..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Tj7o2eAD8 11/11

What does it mean if Dave is talking utter rubbish ?
 
Last edited:
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.

2.25 seconds doesn't mean **** & you know it pal. We're not scared, we just know it's a baseless theory. You're the 1 that's scared because we know, for a fact, that the 2.25 second claim is just non-sense. I've addressed it, you gonna make something of it?

And thanks to Bill for bringing that comment to my attention!
 
Do all debunkers agree with the explanation that the Physicist Dave Thomas publicly gave for the 2.25 seconds freefall in WTC7 ? Hear it again at the 12:08 mark in the attached part 11 of the coast to coast debate..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Tj7o2eAD8 11/11

What does it mean if Dave is talking utter rubbish ?

"by the time those two seconds happened, the part of the building underneath it collapsed already." :jaw-dropp

No retraction Mr. Thomas? You truly believe this? No wonder you're reluctant to debate.
 
"by the time those two seconds happened, the part of the building underneath it collapsed already." :jaw-dropp

No retraction Mr. Thomas? You truly believe this? No wonder you're reluctant to debate.

What is wrong with it?
 
"by the time those two seconds happened, the part of the building underneath it collapsed already." :jaw-dropp

No retraction Mr. Thomas? You truly believe this? No wonder you're reluctant to debate.

Have you even been reading the rest of this thread? There have been some good comments and pointers along the way.

I guess you missed what NIST said, updated just a few weeks ago:

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

If you think NIST is so wrong, why not publish a paper to prove it? There have been numerous recommendations in this regard as well.

And just a quick reminder, the collapse of WTC7 took at least 16 seconds, not 6.5.



Just to spell it out:
Thomas: "...by the time those two seconds happened, the part of the building underneath it collapsed already."

NIST: "During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

Like I said, methinks your quarrel should be with NIST itself.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom