Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

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?

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

 

[alienentity]

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

How do you propose NIST recreate random events exactly as they occurred during the collapse?

You do realize that is an impossible task, I hope....


Further, if brainiac truthers such as yourself, with your great technical knowledge can see thru all this instantly, why don't you use your amazing magical powers and create your own engineering model, showing exactly where the explosives or thermitics were placed, which result in a collapse which looks exactly like the real one?
You won't and you can't. And that's the end of it. Your whole counterclaim fails for complete lack of evidence and rigor.

Give it a rest already, you're very arrogant and repetitious.

 

[cmatrix]

Unjustified arrogance ROCKS.

But seriously, when do we get to see some math from you cmatrix. People here have been askings you to provide mathematical proof of your allegations for months now...please comply.

TAM

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

 

[DGM]

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

If it's so obvious why can't you explain what they got wrong? You know with physics.

Oh wait it's a "gut" thing.

 

[alienentity]

My challenge to such pseudo-skeptics as cmatrix is to quit whining about what NIST should have done, coulda done and woulda done if only.... and just get off your lazy butts and do your own engineering model to prove your arguments.

Answer your own questions, instead of expecting everybody else to do the heavy lifting for you! Where were the explosives place, how much and what kind, how were they placed there, how were they detonated, and why weren't any pieces of steel recovered showing the evidence of them?

Go answer your questions and get back to us when you're done.

 

[alienentity]

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

That's an outright lie. The theory has been 'proven' by a detailed engineering model, and the parameters for the model are published and freely available online for anyone to examine.

Anybody can take the information and freely create their own model based on this, if they have the skills and inclination.

 

[cmatrix]

I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent.

Dave

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

We've already discussed how it was not a simultaneous failure. Stop repeating debunked canards.

 

[cmatrix]

Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?


[qimg]http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3685/picture13re.png[/qimg]

I doubt I would. I would have been burnt to a crisp from the the pyroclastic flow of hot dust. What wasn't burnt would have been sandblasted away.

Such rolls are done all the time in controlled demolitions in order to minimize damage to other structures. Nothing in the video shows the building fell over sideways. It rolled within its own footprint.

 

[DGM]

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

No it's more like you have no clue. Your post do support this.

 

[femr2]

create your own engineering model

Can't be done without the plans.

You won't and you can't.

Can't be done without the plans.

 

[carlitos]

delete, I mis-read something

 

[alienentity]

Can't be done without the plans.


Can't be done without the plans.

Get the plans. Problem solved.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.

 

[cmatrix]

Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

[carlitos]

cmatrix, do you have a theory that explains the collapse better than NIST? This might be a nice time to trot it out.

As an aside, the inability to correctly use "its" in a sentence is like a truther armband. Can't miss it.

 

[HyJinX]

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Can you please detail what the NIST got wrong and please provide your analysis, with the math to back it up?

I patiently await your reply.

Thanks,
HyJinx

 

[T.A.M.]

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

No, but if a well educated group of experts in the given field used science to back up the claim, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, and no othee explanation or theory better explained the phenomenon in question, i would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one.

Is that hard for you to understand?

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Besides, anybody who doesn't agree with the NIST is untrustworthy

 

[beachnut]

Can't be done without the plans.


Can't be done without the plans.

It has already been done. Done without plans. Need to be more like that little old ant, and move the rubber tree plant. "Can't be done", a sign of failure. Research is the key, plus goals.




Don't you love physics?

You know, that's a pretty difficult and complicated question. I mean, you'd actually have to watch and understand the video to be able to "get" it.

So, I'll try to state it as a simpler, but equivalent, proposition.

In this picture:


Are the red lines next to A (earlier in the collapse) closer to each other than the red lines next to B (later in the collapse)?

If so, and since the the Ball (the upper object in both snapshots) is clearly falling at freefall acceleration, g, what does that mean...?

All my physics classes were alive, great teachers, physics teachers, save the ones who signed up for paranoid conspiracies. What would Mr Physics say to Chandler?