Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

Back up your vague, nonmathematic nonscientific diatribe with some math and science, and you wont need to worry about others misrepresenting....it will be there in all of its irrefutable glory....

Yah, like that is gonna happen.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?

Why can't it predict freefall? Explain in detail what their theory is, and why it inherently cannot predict freefall.

 

[Disbelief]

Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.

So then you should be able to show a freefall that attains freefall.

 

[tfk]

cm,

1. You don't know what you are talking about. Time after time after time, you've made trivial, absurd errors.

2. Multiple people have corrected your trivial, absurd errors.

3. You simply ignore, fail to respond to, those corrections.

4. And repeat your trivial, absurd errors.

Allow me to provide a tiny sampling.

You stated:

All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending.

You are wrong.

The north wall was NOT in free fall immediately. I showed you Chandler's data. Here it is again.

Your response: While admitting that the 0.7 seconds of non-free fall acceleration, you ignore the fact that your previous statement was completely wrong.

Here is another sample of previous comments of mine to you. Which you also ignored.

The RED LINE is the acceleration vs. time behavior that you are claiming. The RED LINE shows an object whose supports have been completely removed at 3.75 seconds, entering free fall. Immediately.

The GREEN LINE is the acceleration of the North Wall, with a lot more resolution than Chandler's graph.

Your previous assertion is that the Green Line is the same as the Red Line...

So, cm, are you now prepared to retract your previous, incorrect statement that "the north face entered free fall immediately"?
___

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

Wrong.

I showed you before (green line in graph above) that it wasn't even in free fall during those 2.25 seconds.

Here is the raw position vs. time data: http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/dan_rather_basic_trace_data/1-1-0-29
Calculate your own velocity vs. time graph & your own acceleration vs. time graph.

Come back & discuss it.

"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss …

There has been no "misdirecting away from discussion of this topic".

I have discussed your "inconvenient topic" in excruciating detail in other threads. And attempted to discuss it with you in this one. You simply run away from the discussion.

Above, in this one post, is more substantive discussion than all of your posts combined.

You are the person who will not address the issues. You simply parrot the same nonsense over & over & over.

the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.

Uh, wrong again.

1) It didn't enter free fall. ("immediately" or otherwise)
2) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed for it to enter the acceleration seen.
3) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed "immediately" for it to enter the acceleration seen.
4) 8 stories of resisting structure were not removed.
5) the only thing that has to happen, for that (non-free fall) acceleration to be seen is for the geometry of the supporting structure to be changed. An event that can (& did) happen in about 0.7 seconds.

... you can't explain away the free fall period.

Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.

You don't know what you (or Chandler) are talking about.

David Chandler does not dispute NIST's raw data. [He disputes an interpretation of a small sub-set of the data.]

BOTH Chandler & NIST's data show conclusively that Stages 1, 2 & 3 exist.

You seem unable to view & understand clear graphs. Let me help you, using Chandler's raw data:

Do you understand yet that Chandler's data CONFIRMS NIST's stages?

Are you willing to "discuss" this.

Or will you continue to ignore your trivial, absurd errors?


tom

 

[HyJinX]

brilliant post Tom.

 

[tfk]

brilliant post Tom.

Aw, shucks. Thanks.

I'm a little hesitant to ask what the hell your Ron Burgandy tag line refers to...



tom

 

[cmatrix]

cm,

Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

tom

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

 

[AZCat]

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

Mostly truthers, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

Translation: I have no clue what your post means tfk, please do not include mathematics, physics and engineering in your posts as I do not understand them.

 

[beachnut]

... The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

The best part of your delusion, you can't prove it. If you could it would be in real journal right now.

I don't need to defend NIST, you can't refute them, you can't prove them wrong. The only thing you have done is said they have rubbish for a theory, and rant about crackpot pseudo-science. Yet you have produce no science, only talk as your evidence. You lost this one. Until you produce reasons and the math to go with your work, you have failed to prove anything other than you are making up false statements about NIST.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.

Parts that we've all been trying to get you to admit emboldened. The point, of course, is that "within a fraction of a second" is not "simultaneous", and allows the column failures to be related by a chain of causality rather than a single external cause. And that's the strawman argument you've been presenting: that the 2.25 second drop cannot be explained by a sequential failure of columns, when in fact it can, and has been. And, once the failure is seen to be sequential, it's obvious that it could be caused by progressive failure, and didn't have to be demolition.

Dave

 

[tfk]

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom

 

[bill smith]

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom

If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g impelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?

 

[Horatius]

If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g inpelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?

Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.

 

[bill smith]

Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.

If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?

 

[Horatius]

If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?

His lunch.

 

[bill smith]

His lunch.

You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and 'then a miracle happened'

 

[Horatius]

You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and ' then a miracle happened'

Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?

 

[bill smith]

Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?

Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?

 

[bill smith]

Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?

PS. Or maybe the fly flying at two miles an hour in the car racing along at 90 mph flies into the windscreen presumably pushing the car along just that little bit faster than 90 mph ?