Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[bill smith]

* Stage 1 : Plummet
* Stage 2 : Plunge
* Stage 3 : GONE

lol

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

uh huh...so you, an uneducated (in the relevant areas) investigoogler, IS NOT a crack pot, but the PhD (in the relevant fields) scientists of NIST are?

I love it when the truthers from material of their own for lurkers to read.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

* Stage 1 : Plummet
* Stage 2 : Plunge
* Stage 3 : GONE

lol

Is the above suppose to represent the journey your sanity has taken?

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

No because I am not a crackpot.

Of course not. Just talking outside any area in which you have any expertise.

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.

No. The walls did not buckle instantaneously, but, at some point, they buckled so far that they could no longer support any weight and the upper part dropped down until it met the rubble below. Pretty simple to grasp, if you bother to think.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No because I am not a crackpot.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. You're doing everything crackpots do, including making up your own laws of physics on the fly, misrepresenting the arguments of people who disagree with you, and failing to understand some very simple and obvious engineering concepts. By any rational definition, this makes you a crackpot.

Dave

 

[Horatius]

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.

For those playing at home, here we see why no one bothers playing cmatrix's "Challenge Game". Since he's not interested in the actual truth, he simply rejects any reasonable explanation out of hand, by making up some silly strawman like "magically suspended in the air", and then berates others for not understanding physics.

cmatrix has never shown any willingness or ability to actually understand any physics, let alone the horrendously complicated physics of a building collapsing. Until he can show that he has such an ability, and the will to use it, he'll never get any significant response to his "Challenge".


Which is exactly the way he likes it.

 

[bill smith]

For those playing at home, here we see why no one bothers playing cmatrix's "Challenge Game". Since he's not interested in the actual truth, he simply rejects any reasonable explanation out of hand, by making up some silly strawman like "magically suspended in the air", and then berates others for not understanding physics.

cmatrix has never shown any willingness or ability to actually understand any physics, let alone the horrendously complicated physics of a building collapsing. Until he can show that he has such an ability, and the will to use it, he'll never get any significant response to his "Challenge".


Which is exactly the way he likes it.

Can you clear something up for the Readers and I Horatius ? Who is right about the 2.25 seconds ? Dave Thomas or NIST- or are their explanations essentially the same ? Does NIST say essentially what Dave is reported to have said in the attached hyperlink ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6396110&postcount=98 hyperlink

 

[cmatrix]

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:



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:




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

No one here has ever ever dealt with the WTC7 2.25 second free fall, period. At best they simply parrot the pseudo-science claptrap from NIST. The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with sciency language to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF including yourself Mr. Thomas do take NIST seriously. You take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. You believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility. My problem is with NIST as well as those who defend their pseudo-science garbage. Your statement that I should publish a paper instead of you supporting your unsupportable position is a cop out.

Now let's analyze the monumentally absurd WTC 7 buckling theory. For the 2.25 second free fall period you need to completely get rid of eight stories of structure. There appears to be only two possibilities. All 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time or all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously floor by floor. The columns could not buckle simultaneously floor by floor and still result in free fall. When the first floor buckled building would be crashing down and meet resistance with resulting slow down. In this scenario there could be no free fall. So you are left with all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time, the accordion theory. The odds of this happening are so astronomical that they could never be computed.

 

[DGM]

No one here has ever ever dealt with the WTC7 2.25 second free fall, period. At best they simply parrot the pseudo-science claptrap from NIST. The NIST WTC 7 report is absolute garbage dressed up with sciency language to fool the gullible. It is faith-based not science-based. In science, experiments and the data involved with them are shared with other independent scientists. Scientists that refuse to share the data their experiments are based on would never have papers published, would not be taken seriously by any reputable scientist. Yet the NIST apologists at JREF including yourself Mr. Thomas do take NIST seriously. You take seriously unreplicated unreproducible experiments. That is not science. That is pseudo-science. You believe without question the completely unsupported pronouncements of experts. That is not skepticism that is gullibility. My problem is with NIST as well as those who defend their pseudo-science garbage. Your statement that I should publish a paper instead of you supporting your unsupportable position is a cop out.

Now let's analyze the monumentally absurd WTC 7 buckling theory. For the 2.25 second free fall period you need to completely get rid of eight stories of structure. There appears to be only two possibilities. All 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time or all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously floor by floor. The columns could not buckle simultaneously floor by floor and still result in free fall. When the first floor buckled building would be crashing down and meet resistance with resulting slow down. In this scenario there could be no free fall. So you are left with all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time, the accordion theory. The odds of this happening are so astronomical that they could never be computed.

So can we assume you haven't actually read the NIST report or is it that the "sciency language" is over your head?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now let's analyze the monumentally absurd WTC 7 buckling theory. For the 2.25 second free fall period you need to completely get rid of eight stories of structure. There appears to be only two possibilities. All 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time or all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously floor by floor.

Firstly, "simultaneously floor by floor" is an oxymoron, so of course that's not the answer. Secondly, you're ignoring the possibility that a single buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight storeys above the bottom hinge - quite a simple occurrence given that the interior had collapsed and the perimeter columns were unsupported.

So, now that you've been told the third possibility, would you like to think about it a bit more?

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

Firstly, "simultaneously floor by floor" is an oxymoron, so of course that's not the answer. Secondly, you're ignoring the possibility that a single buckle occurred, with the top hinge eight storeys above the bottom hinge - quite a simple occurrence given that the interior had collapsed and the perimeter columns were unsupported.

So, now that you've been told the third possibility, would you like to think about it a bit more?

Dave

I doubt many (any?) of them even had a hinge after buckling. They were VERY slender.

 

[Horatius]

Can you clear something up for the Readers and I Horatius ? Who is right about the 2.25 seconds ? Dave Thomas or NIST- or are their explanations essentially the same ? Does NIST say essentially what Dave is reported to have said in the attached hyperlink ?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6396110&postcount=98 hyperlink

You mean the explanation from Dave Thomas quoted in this post?

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

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

You fellow traveler linked us to the answer to this question right here.

Let's look at the text produced by NIST:

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.

So, I'd say that NIST's description of "buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face" that lead to "the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below" is essentially the same explanation as offered by Dave Thomas, that being "by the time those two seconds happened, the part of the building underneath it collapsed already", particularly when you consider that Dave Thomas' comment was a verbal description. How else would one summarize NIST's position as described above, in a single sentence, delivered verbally?

Now, why don't you try to explain why it is you think these two descriptions are so fundamentally at odds that you would imply there's some huge discrepancy that calls into question the competence of one or both of Dave Thomas and NIST?

 

[Horatius]

Let's see if this has any effect other than The Usual Suspects making a joke about the title....

 

[Stout]

I can't say I've spent a whole lot of time on WTC 7 but in reading these threads and trying to visualise the freefall portion of the collapse I'd come up with something sort of like the drawing above.

Cheers Horatius, nice to know I was on the right track and sometimes a picture is worth....

 

[TJM]

I can't say I've spent a whole lot of time on WTC 7 but in reading these threads and trying to visualise the freefall portion of the collapse I'd come up with something sort of like the drawing above.

Cheers Horatius, nice to know I was on the right track and sometimes a picture is worth....

You should also known as a Canadian, that bit of knowledge entitles you claim $10,000 from the OP of this thread, cmatrix, also known as Michael Fullerton of Vernon 9/11 Troof.

http://vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

 

[Horatius]

I can't say I've spent a whole lot of time on WTC 7 but in reading these threads and trying to visualise the freefall portion of the collapse I'd come up with something sort of like the drawing above.

Cheers Horatius, nice to know I was on the right track and sometimes a picture is worth....

You should also known as a Canadian, that bit of knowledge entitles you claim $10,000 from the OP of this thread, cmatrix, also known as Michael Fullerton of Vernon 9/11 Troof.

http://vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

I expect a finder's fee!

 

[TJM]

I expect a finder's fee!

Ahem.

I'll take a 25% Finder's fee. thanks.

Too Late!


Ah crap. I'm getting a visit from the Kitties, eh?

 

[Horatius]

Ah crap. I'm getting a visit from the Kitties, eh?

The Advance Team is already scoping you out!


Oct. 3 2010 001

 

[triforcharity]

The Advance Team is already scoping you out!

WIN!!!! Nice job!!

 

[Newtons Bit]

I can't say I've spent a whole lot of time on WTC 7 but in reading these threads and trying to visualise the freefall portion of the collapse I'd come up with something sort of like the drawing above.

Cheers Horatius, nice to know I was on the right track and sometimes a picture is worth....

It's unfortunately not the right track. Most (all?) of the columns did not buckle in that fashion. They buckled elastically, which means no hinges.