Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[BigAl]

So the lack of any visual evidence is, to Big Al, "irrelevant" to the "understanding". Let's remember this when it comes up in a different argument.

Firemen reported enough fire to decide WTC7 was at risk. They were shown to be right when it collapsed. Their evidence is reported in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

They didn't carry cameras when they entered the building.

.

 

[ergo]

Well, actually, a very large amount of its internal structure did collapse. What that tells us, of course, is that collapse of steel structures is really rather commonplace as a result of contents fires. But, of course, truthers want to pretend that's not true, so they'd rather not think about WTC5's internal collapse.

We know about WTC5's internal collapse. We also know, contrary to bee dunker physics, that it didn't precipitate a global collapse. Why not? The fires were much, much worse, and no doubt the structural damage was as well.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, it does, doesn't it? It makes the point, in the title slide, that the person making the video is as shockingly ignorant of what happened on 9/11 as you are.

"Why didn't WTC5 collapse?"

Well, actually, a very large amount of its internal structure did collapse. What that tells us, of course, is that collapse of steel structures is really rather commonplace as a result of contents fires. But, of course, truthers want to pretend that's not true, so they'd rather not think about WTC5's internal collapse.

Dave

Really, if someone understood logic at all, they would wonder why building codes require fireproofing on structural steel members...

 

[T.A.M.]

I've posted this before, but it makes the point really well.

This is what real fires look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ&feature=related

So if that is real fire, please show me what fake fire looks like.

Thanks

TAM

 

[ergo]

Firemen reported enough fire to decide WTC7 was at risk. They were shown to be right when it collapsed. Their evidence is reported in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

They didn't carry cameras when they entered the building.

.

And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button. Why would that be? When they were taking pictures of just about everything else.

 

[BigAl]

We know about WTC5's internal collapse. We also know, contrary to bee dunker physics, that it didn't precipitate a global collapse. Why not? The fires were much, much worse, and no doubt the structural damage was as well.

Irrelevant. WTC5 isn't WTC7.

 

[T.A.M.]

And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button. Why would that be? When they were taking pictures of just about everything else.

there are pictures and video of both the gash and the fires. Where are you coming up with this????

TAM

 

[ergo]

So if that is real fire, please show me what fake fire looks like.

Not fake, per se, but insignificant.

(that was too easy. )

 

[ergo]

there are pictures and video of both the gash and the fires. Where are you coming up with this????

Great, where are they?

 

[BigAl]

And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button. Why would that be? When they were taking pictures of just about everything else.

Civilians were gone from WTC plaza when the North tower collapsed and most firemen don't carry cameras. That being said, the 80GB of NIST video has lots of video of WTC7 on fire.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

 

[uke2se]

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.

First of all, this is a blatant lie.

Second of all, TAM spoke of a complete theory, taking into account all of the existing evidence.

 

[ergo]

the 80GB of NIST video has lots of video of WTC7 on fire.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You've seen the 80 GB video personally? Where can you access this?

T.A.M. said that there were photos and video of it. I'll wait for him to answer.

 

[T.A.M.]

Great, where are they?

NIST has released a tonne of them. There is the NBC (IIRC) video. There are many others...seriously, I am not arguing with you or discussing the issue with you, so I am not gonna do your homework for you...go find them...they are there.

but I'll help out a little, with a quick google search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx8oOVm7zvg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aYl87AlWGo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcFQUpL_yA

on first glance

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Not fake, per se, but insignificant.

(that was too easy. )

you put the subjective in subjective. You should use the word real more appropriately next time.

TAM

 

[uke2se]

It's quite obvious from the direction of the conversation that ergo already knows he's dead wrong, and he's trying to hide it by trolling as much as possible.

Time to ignore.

 

[T.A.M.]

You've seen the 80 GB video personally? Where can you access this?

T.A.M. said that there were photos and video of it. I'll wait for him to answer.

I did answer. IIRC BigAl has downloaded a fair bit of it. As to whether he has looked at it all, he can answer. Apparently the full download (920 GB) is around somewhere.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

It's quite obvious from the direction of the conversation that ergo already knows he's dead wrong, and he's trying to hide it by trolling as much as possible.

Time to ignore.

Yes, next I predict he will demand the "Gash" videos, then he will minimize the NBC video. He will then claim the NIST videos collection is a fraud, or some such crap.

Goal Posts go where???

TAM

 

[ergo]

NIST has released a tonne of them. There is the NBC (IIRC) video. There are many others...seriously, I am not arguing with you or discussing the issue with you, so I am not gonna do your homework for you...go find them...they are there.

but I'll help out a little, with a quick google search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx8oOVm7zvg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aYl87AlWGo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqcFQUpL_yA

In other words, the Google searches you just did now which did not turn up images of raging fires, nor any images of a huge gash.

Where are the photos? Saying "i'm not gonna do your homework for you" is a little late, after you've already made a counter-claim that photos and video show these fires and the structural damage. If you make the claim, you better back it up.

 

[Dave Rogers]

...getting cranky there, Dave. I know it's frustrating when you want to just find a photo that will shut me up real quick and you can't.

If you won't take any notice of an engineering study that took hundreds of experts several years to complete, I doubt you'll take much notice of a photo.

Dave

 

[ergo]

If you won't take any notice of an engineering study that took hundreds of experts several years to complete, I doubt you'll take much notice of a photo.

Try me.