• 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

If only you would...

Why don't you try him out? Present a complete theory taking into account all the evidence that explains it all better than the 9/11 commission report and the NIST reports - basically what you call the "official story". You would be the first twoofer to accomplish this, so I'm looking forward to it.
 
Since cmatrix won't be posting a video of a controlled demolition where there is a period of freefall acceleration, perhaps ergo would like to do so? Educate the 'bee dunkers,' maybe? All of the vegas casino ones are available on Las Vegas Deathwatch or youtube. Have at it.

:popcorn1
 
Sorry, uke, the explanation for WTC7 has already been laid out extensively and numerous times, by qualified people. T.A.M. rejects it because his guvmint doesn't endorse it.
 
Sorry, uke, the explanation for WTC7 has already been laid out extensively and numerous times, by qualified people. T.A.M. rejects it because his guvmint doesn't endorse it.

T.A.M. is Canadian.
 
Sorry, uke, the explanation for WTC7 has already been laid out extensively and numerous times, by qualified people. T.A.M. rejects it because his guvmint doesn't endorse it.

And yet, not one person can provide a complete report on it. Very extensive.
 
Sorry, uke, the explanation for WTC7 has already been laid out extensively and numerous times, by qualified people. T.A.M. rejects it because his guvmint doesn't endorse it.

Side of Sanity and Reason:
------------------------------
ASCE, NIST, CTBUH, and other associations/groups agree with the official explanation for building 7, that it was brought down by untreated prolonged multifloored fires.

The photographic and video evidence supports this position, as does the modeling that NIST used in their investigation.

Witness saw the building leaning and with a bulge in its side, prior to collapse.

There was no series of visible flashes, or a timed series of audible explosions in the moments prior to the collapse (as seen in all traditional tall building controlled demolitions).

There was no evidence of det cord, or explosive residue found.

NISt conducted modeling using independent software that determined that the window breakage pattern did not match what would be seen with explosive detonation significant enough to weaken the columns significantly enough for collapse. The absence of the subsequent noise of such a blast in the witness testimony aids in confirming such.


On the side of "the truth"
------------------------------
A crowd of architects and engineers who have provided NO EVIDENCE, THEORY, or SCIENCE OF THEIR OWN, don't agree with the NIST conclusions. They have stated that the 2.25 seconds of free fall, in the middle of the collapse, of the North Face of the building is proof of a controlled demolition. They provide no calculations, science, or proof of any kind, to back it up.

The truth movement claims that because WTC looked like a CD to the untrained eye, and no other skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire alone, that it must have been a CD that brought down WTC7.


That about sums it up...let the reader decide.

TAM:)
 
If only you would...

Why don't you try him out? Present a complete theory taking into account all the evidence that explains it all better than the 9/11 commission report and the NIST reports - basically what you call the "official story". You would be the first twoofer to accomplish this, so I'm looking forward to it.
thumbup.gif


:popcorn1
 
ASCE, NIST, CTBUH, and other associations/groups agree with the official explanation for building 7, that it was brought down by untreated prolonged multifloored fires.

Um, both ASCE members and NIST were involved in the investigation. So of course they would "agree". :rolleyes:

But hey, you got the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat on your side! :)

Who are these "others" that you speak of?

A crowd 1300 of architects and engineers who have provided NO EVIDENCE, a THEORY, or and SCIENCE OF THEIR OWN, and don't agree with the NIST conclusions.
 
Hey DGM, where on this site: http://www.ae911truth.info/ can we "Learn the truth about Richard Gage" ?? I haven't found much "truth" about him personally here. I also, as is true with most "debunking" sites, can't see anything that has actually been debunked. More stuff along the lines of: "It's not at all impossible for a steel-framed building to collapse from fire..." and then they proceed to not actually show that to be the case.

It is possible for buildings to collapse due to fire alone. That one has not before 9/11 or after is not evidence for the opposite

lol.

... but evidence for the power of the social safety net that exists throughout cities that build such large buildings...

(The fires in WTC 1 and 2 burned for ~90 and 60 minutes respectively.)

His/her "Let's also compare these buildings" analysis uses not simple facts about the buildings, but arguments put forward by NIST, as his/her "evidence" that the NIST model must be correct. :boggled:
 
Instead, saying it was explosives that don't behave anything like explosives or leave any evidence behind, makes much more sense.
 
Um, both ASCE members and NIST were involved in the investigation. So of course they would "agree". :rolleyes:

But hey, you got the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat on your side! :)

Who are these "others" that you speak of?

So you have no resorted to OUTRIGHT lying now?

1. AE911 has not produced a theory.
2. AE911 has not produced any science to back up any of their assertions.
3. AE911 has not provided any evidence (sorry, their opinion is not evidence)

You were right, that there are 1300 "members" of their group. I suspect not all of them are architects and engineers (I don't think Gage has weeded out all of the duds yet).

As for CTBUH, while they disagree with the specific issue of column 79, they agree with NIST, that the building came down from prolonged, untreated, multistory fires...NOT EXPLOSIVES.

TAM:)
 
Instead, saying it was explosives that don't behave anything like explosives or leave any evidence behind, makes much more sense.


Is this the argument? I believe the argument is, if it looks like CD and acts like CD, then that should be the first avenue of investigation. If it doesn't look like a fire or act like a fire, and fires don't typically bring down steel-framed buildings, then why are we saying it's a fire? Pretty simple. For most of us, anyway.
 
cm,

Well, it took long enough. Glad you're now on our side...

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

What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

And this was the breakthru moment.

Clearly, you believe that something can fall slower than g.
And now that you say you believe that something can fall faster than g, then we've bridged the span that says that you believe that something can fall at g as well.

Well, that was like pulling teeth, but I'm glad we got there.

Does this mean that I win your $5,000??

"All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain."

Really? So what was the FOIA request for? John Gross's phone number?

What was the FOIA for? Because truthers are technically clueless.

All the data to reconstruct the models is in the public domain. The vast majority of it is in the NIST reports.

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

Well I certainly can't recreate it.

No…??

Really…???

But it sounds like you are saying it would be easy for you to recreate it. So let's see you do it.

You don't read very well, cm. That could be part of your problem.

You'll have to point out where you think that I said that it'd be "easy". One of those "reading comprehension" thingies, apparently.

Since all the hard work is done, it'd take a staff of mechanical and/or structural engineer about 50 man-years, I'd guess. Or a group of grad students about 100 man-years.

With free Jolt cola & twinkies, you'd get it down to 10 "blazing-grad-student-years". But it'd take another 200 to fix all the errors.

Not hard in the slightest. But pretty laborious.

Unless you are completely full of crap, that is.

If you didn't run & hide from every conversation, perhaps you might find out.


tom
 
Is this the argument? I believe the argument is, if it looks like CD and acts like CD, then that should be the first avenue of investigation. If it doesn't look like a fire or act like a fire, and fires don't typically bring down steel-framed buildings, then why are we saying it's a fire? Pretty simple. For most of us, anyway.

please explain to me, besides tipping over on its side, how ANY BUILDING is suppose to fall, when it comes down by ANY CAUSE?

Please explain to me how WTC7 acted differently then any building that falls down (outside of one that tips over) regardless of cause?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
Is this the argument? I believe the argument is, if it looks like CD and acts like CD, then that should be the first avenue of investigation. If it doesn't look like a fire or act like a fire, and fires don't typically bring down steel-framed buildings, then why are we saying it's a fire? Pretty simple. For most of us, anyway.

No, it was an observation. It was a CD that used explosions that make no noise, leave no residue, and leave no wiring or unspent explosives. Or thermite that goes off without any light, and without leaving any melted material behind. Not to mention 3 buildings rigged without anybody noticing. Or WTC 7 that was on fire for hours yet all the supposed explosives managed to work perfectly.

So simple for all you brilliant truthers who don't even understand how gravity works? If it's so simple, why is there nothing to show after 9 years? The Man keeping you down?
 
Last edited:
So you have no resorted to OUTRIGHT lying now?

1. AE911 has not produced a theory.

Their theory is that controlled demolition brought it down.

2. AE911 has not produced any science to back up any of their assertions.

The observations of the visual evidence and their comparisons to the official story versus that of a controlled demolition is the definition of scientific empiricism.

3. AE911 has not provided any evidence (sorry, their opinion is not evidence)

They have provided extensive evidence based on the visual evidence and the knowledge of the professionals who support them.
 

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