Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

Where's your analysis showing that it "requires more gravitational potential energy than could have been available"?

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. There is no more gravitational potential energy available to break up structure as would be required in NIST's crackpot progressive collapse theory.

 

[cmatrix]

Since it didn't fall straight down, then, we know that all 58 perimeter columns weren't cut simultaneously. This objection is therefore irrelevant.



However, it wasn't fire that caused the failure to propagate, as any competent structural engineer will tell you. It was load redistribution which progressively overloaded and failed each structural member adjacent to the most recent failure. This objection is also, therefore, irrelevant.



Since the progressive failure occurred, as everybody has been telling you and you've been refusing to hear, before the period of free fall, this objection too is irrelevant.



The collapse initiation and progression was modelled in detail by NIST, and the visible features of collapse are indicative of progressive failure initiating in the eastern core columns, progressing laterally through the core, then to the centre of the north face, then laterally through the north face. All this is evidence for progressive collapse caused by fire. There is not only a complete absence of evidence for any other means of collapse initiation, there is evidence against it in the absence of explosions from the audible record.

So, since you're rejecting a theory that is based on all the available evidence in favour of one that is specifically contradicted by a subset of the available evidence, the message everyone's trying to get across to you is... actually, I think someone said it better than I can:



Next time you say that, record it and play it back to yourself, then you'll be saying it to the person who really needs to hear it.

Dave

WTC 7 did fall straight down. It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. No trustworthy structural engineer would ever say this was a fire-initiated collapse.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that progressive failure by load redistribution occurred, only completely unsupported pronouncements. Load redistribution is not instantaneous. The columns on the sides and the corners were removed instantaneously to allow all four corners to fall at the exact same rate.

The NIST model is a fraudulent unreplicated piece if pseudo-science garbage. The ridiculous NIST model does not even show a free fall period. You have absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in without question. All you have is faith. Faith-based theories are crackpot pseudo-science. This is something you all need to come to terms with.

 

[cmatrix]

cm,



Nice try, kid.

You're bluffing.

You know it.
I know it.



Pure, baseless assertion.

The funny thing is that you ain't that far off in your pure, baseless assertion.

But I bet that you have no idea how to make your case.

Let's see you prove me wrong.

[BTW, lest you get all atwitter with my comment, in engineering, we have a term for a conclusion that "ain't that far off". It's referred to as: "wrong".]



Here's a purely gravity driven collapse that experiences a period of acceleration GREATER than free fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Notice how much faster the free end of the lever falls compared to the ball (which is falling at 'g'.) The end of the lever is falling faster than 'g'.

Here's another, similar case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFJPQLhWPvA

The washers are falling at 'g'. The end of the stick is falling faster than 'g'.

Whaddaya say to that, kid?

Does this simple demonstration "violate the laws of physics"?
Or is it just possible that your understanding of some of the finer details is a little, shall we say, "incomplete".

Perhaps you've put a little too much faith in people whose understanding is also a little less than complete.



"unreplicated"?? Yup. You got $500 million you want to put into building, & then destroying, another WTC7? No? Well, no problem. In engineering (that'd be REAL engineering), we don't have to do that anymore. IF you had paid attention, you might have learned a bit from the NIST report (or the Challenger or Columbia investigations, or the design of any car or plane today) that computer modeling (supported by piecemeal validation of subsystems) takes the place of the destruction of full scale models. Oh, for the last 30 years or so.

That would be "computer simulations (supported by piecemeal validation of subsystems)" exactly like NIST performed.

"faith-based"? Did they use the Catholic or the Protestant version of ANSYS? Did they enter the "Jewish yield strengths" or the "Muslim yield strengths" for the steel? LoL.

"crackpot"? Sure. "Crackpot" affirmed by Purdue, MIT, Cornell, ARA, Arup, AIAA, and engineers around the globe. "Crackpot" negated by putzes like ?? You? Chandler? Szamboti? (gimme a break...!)

"pseudo-science"? Let's see you answer the questions above before we get to that one.



It's not "extraordinary claims". It's "ordinary claims".

It's not "extraordinary engineering". It's "ordinary (actually excellent) engineering".

It's not "extraordinary proof". It's ordinary, competent proof, called "the NIST report".



Others have already comments on the irony in this one.



I'm not running away from anything, kid.

Let's see you do the same. Stay here and answer the points that I've made.

Or run away and show yourself to be wrong, a coward, and a hypocrite.

C'mon, matrix. Every single time that you've started down this path, and I've responded to you, you simply run away.

Show some huevos. Stand and defend your wild speculation & baseless pronouncements.

Or run away.

Again.


tom

Um we're talking about a 47 story massively interconnected steel structure building here not coins, balls and sticks. Are you attempting to say that the 2.25 second free fall period can be explained by what we see in these videos? Or is this just another diversionary tactic?

NIST's computer model of the WTC 7 collapse is what is unreplicated and unreproducible. It will stay that way until they release their data. They won't release the data because doing so will show that the model is fraudulent garbage. The absurd completely unsupported pseudo-science theory you believe in is very far off.

 

[twinstead]

WTC 7 did fall straight down. It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. No trustworthy structural engineer would ever say this was a fire-initiated collapse.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that progressive failure by load redistribution occurred, only completely unsupported pronouncements. Load redistribution is not instantaneous. The columns on the sides and the corners were removed instantaneously to allow all four corners to fall at the exact same rate.

The NIST model is a fraudulent unreplicated piece if pseudo-science garbage. The ridiculous NIST model does not even show a free fall period. You have absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in without question. All you have is faith. Faith-based theories are crackpot pseudo-science. This is something you all need to come to terms with.

The bolded part confuses me. Are you saying that no matter how many structural engineers DO say it was a fire-initiated collapse, any who do so are in your mind not trustworthy, or are you saying that only only a few structural engineers think it was a fire-initiated collapse, and those are just the untrustworthy ones?

I think you need to keep in mind just how much you are in the abject minority, and how many structural engineers DO agree that damage and fires CAN explain the collapses. Does it make you sleep better at night to simply hand wave them all away as "untrustworthy"?

 

[GlennB]

WTC 7 did fall straight down. It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down.

It developed a very noticeable lean to the south as it fell.

 

[T.A.M.]

To mangle bob dylan.....

The goal posts, they are a movin....

TAM

 

[ergo]

The answer, put as simply as possible, is that the average acceleration experienced by the stick is g. Since, however, some parts of the stick are restrained so that they accelerate less than g, some other parts must be accelerating more than g.

The physical laws involved are those of gravity, leverage and geometry.

I didn't know that gravity could pull things to the earth faster than gravity. What law of motion provides for this exception?

And why are you assuming that the ball is falling at 'g' when it clearly is falling slower than the stick?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If that's not a Stundie, I don't know what is.

 

[carlitos]

Wow. Just wow.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

WTC 7 did fall straight down. It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down. ...

Pwned by Youtube:

 

[excaza]

I didn't know that gravity could pull things to the earth faster than gravity. What law of motion provides for this exception?

And why are you assuming that the ball is falling at 'g' when it clearly is falling slower than the stick?

Seriously, an explanation is given in the freaking video description!
http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...ram_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent194037

Or are you going to start tying to say the ruler was spring loaded? Or maybe the ball was metallic and suspended in a magnetic field? Little rocket boosters on the ruler?

 

[Disbelief]

I didn't know that gravity could pull things to the earth faster than gravity. What law of motion provides for this exception?

And why are you assuming that the ball is falling at 'g' when it clearly is falling slower than the stick?

Thanks for this, I can't stop laughing! This literally puts the stundie back into the stundies!

 

[Dave Rogers]

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

That whirring sound you can hear is Isaac Newton turning in his grave.

Dave

 

[excaza]

That whirring sound you can hear is Isaac Newton turning in his grave.

Dave

Everyone knows the "h" in mgh stands for 'hvelocity' (the h is silent)

 

[femr2]

The answer, put as simply as possible, is that the average acceleration experienced by the stick is g. Since, however, some parts of the stick are restrained so that they accelerate less than g, some other parts must be accelerating more than g.

The physical laws involved are those of gravity, leverage and geometry.

Dave

Maybe this'll help ergo...


I've marked four points on the ruler, and the ball...

...and plotted the vertical position of each...

...you should notice that only one of the points on the ruler closely matches the displacement profile of the ball.

Re-read what folk have told you, ergo, and then state which point on the ruler it is that matches up.

 

[beachnut]

WTC 7 did fall straight down.
.

Then we have reality, and as we will see in the same post we have proof, straight to 911 truth and cmatrix is not straight, but ...

Pwned by Youtube:

It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. ...
.

Is sagging straight? not exactly Is rolling straight? not exactly

Can fire cause buildings to collapse? Yes, ask a structural engineer why the put on fire systems and insulate the steel. WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I didn't know that gravity could pull things to the earth faster than gravity. What law of motion provides for this exception?

And why are you assuming that the ball is falling at 'g' when it clearly is falling slower than the stick?

The ball is falling at g, that is a correct assumption.

The exception? The NWO controls physics! Have you watched Phineas and Ferb? The NWO has the gravity discombobulator, able to modulate and form a differential gravity field. If you had grandsons you would have seen this new technology from Doofenshmirtz Quality Bratwurst.

Forget the Bratwurst, go to your high school physics teacher and ask for help; the answer is simple and he/she can explain it to you.

 

[tfk]

Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G.

No other comment?

No, "whoops, perhaps my understanding of the situation was a little off. Maybe a little too simplistic"?

Um we're talking about a 47 story massively interconnected steel structure building here not coins, balls and sticks.

For once, you've said something right.

Yes, we are talking about a collapsing 47 story, massively interconnected steel structure. Not an isolated falling object.

For ALL falling objects (isolated or not)

Eqn 1: (F_g+ ΣF_i) / m = a

where:
F_g= force of gravity
ΣF_i= sum of all forces except gravity
m = mass of falling object
a = resultant acceleration of object.

For the special case of an "isolated falling object", by definition ΣF_i= 0. And the above equation reduces to:
Eqn 2: F_g / m = a = G
where G = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2 or 32.2 ft/sec^2)

Note that, if ΣF_i≠ 0, then a ≠ G.

The balls & the coins are "isolated falling objects". They obey Eqn 2.

The cup & the end of the stick are not "isolated". They obey Eqn 1.

Now, let's see if you can take one, simple baby-step on your own …

Question 1: While it fell, was the north wall of WTC7 isolated from all other objects that might have imparted a force on it?

Question 2: Would it obey Eqn 1 or Eqn 2?

Question 3: Based on your answer to Question 2, is it possible for the north wall to fall at, or above, G?

Question 4: Using the variables shown in Eqn 1 above, describe how the north wall could fall "at G"?

Question 5: Describe how it could fall "faster than G"?

Are you attempting to say that the 2.25 second free fall period can be explained by what we see in these videos?

Yup.

NIST's computer model of the WTC 7 collapse is what is unreplicated and unreproducible.

The same clueless statements you bozos made about the WTC1 & 2 towers. Until others performed the same analyses that NIST did, and got the same results that NIST got.

It will stay that way until they release their data. They won't release the data because doing so will show that the model is fraudulent garbage.

You are making the same clueless error that some clueless "national security" bozo made when he declared the data "sensitive".

All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain. Dimensions, connections, assumptions, methodology, materials, material properties, etc. are all neatly tabulated in the NIST reports.

Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily.

This argument is simply the latest transparent smoke-screen, because all of your other transparent smoke-screens have evaporated. (Precisely why you bozos have abandoned WTC 1 & 2. All your "gotchas" have been answered.)

The absurd completely unsupported pseudo-science theory you believe in is very far off.

For someone who is totally clueless, you sure are arrogant.


tom

 

[T.A.M.]

I am speechless....almost. Is chandler, a physics teacher, promoting this line of thinking, and these people parrotting it, or is this stuff all original cmatrix/ergo material?

Btw beach, i love Phineas and Ferb...funniest kids cartoon out there.

TAM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I am speechless....almost. Is chandler, a physics teacher, promoting this line of thinking, and these people parrotting it, or is this stuff all original cmatrix/ergo material?

Btw beach, i love Phineas and Ferb...funniest kids cartoon out there.

TAM

Alot of Chandler's work is basically a simplification of high school physics wrongly applied to a more complex real world scenario. For example, he seems to reflect that moving bodies can't exert a force greater than their weight when they impact something... (he mangles conservation of momentum). So I wouldn't be surprised if what you're asking about was true.

 

[Newtons Bit]

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. There is no more gravitational potential energy available to break up structure as would be required in NIST's crackpot progressive collapse theory.

The NIST theory outlines an 8-story failure of the columns. They provide no resistance at this point. You need to actually read and understand what the NIST theory is before you call it crackpot, mmkay?