Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

cm,

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

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??



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.



No…??

Really…???



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.



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


tom

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

It looks like you gone of the deep end. You claimed I said it was impossible that an object falling only under the influence of gravity could fall faster than G. I never made such a claim. You made a ridiculous mistake and are too pig-headed to own up to it. I'm not offering $5000 for babbling nonsense.

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

Yet NIST says:

"NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."

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

and

"You'll have to point out where you think that I said that it'd be "easy"".

So I guess you are saying then that I am as clueless as you are...

 

[cmatrix]

evidence:

Where is the physical evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the video evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the eye witness testimony that a series of explosions (flashes, booms) went off in the moments right before WTC7 Collapse?
Where are the whistleblowers testifying that explosives were planted?
Where is the det cord, the explosive residue, the left over thermite, the thermite applicators?

Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for Controlled Demolition.

TAM

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

 

[BigAl]

And why was no firefighting done?

So you haven't read pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 yet.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[ergo]

100% wrong.
Uh, yeah they did.

Great. Where is it?

Uh, yes there was. Images of a massive gash.

Great. Where are they?

Gee, "most of" the reporters only saw Princess Di drive away, not get killed in the car accident. That must mean that she didn't really get killed.

We're talking about something that was sitting there for several hours. Not about something driving past witnesses.

Many people explicitly described a long, deep vertical gash that ran thru many stories, very near the center of the south face.

Can you point out where these testimonies would be found?

BTW, NIST didn't model a "long vertical hole the length of the building right smack in the middle of the south face". NIST used all the video & photo info available to model the best, most accurate approximation to the actual damage that they could. Based on all the evidence that they had.

If they didn't model, then I guess it wasn't there. Why would they not model something that you are not only insisting was there, but that there is all this evidence of? Your critique here isn't making a lot of sense.

Outright, ludicrous, 100% wrong..

100% wrong.

I am referring to the NIST report on WTC7 that Big Al cited. What are you referring to?

Please show us these testimonials.

Nobody said, implied, inferred, suggested, insinuated or intimated that it did.

Good to know. So, if they're not blaming the corner damage, and they're not blaming the large gash in the back that you insist is there but that they don't bother modelling in their analysis, then I guess we're just back to the fires, huh? Okey dokey.

 

[cmatrix]

yes, in the broadest sense of the word, putting the written word into type, and then up online, is publishing.

By the scientific, nay, by the intellectually ACCEPTED definition of the word, published is to have your paper/article/book taken and placed into print by an accepted and reputable magazine or publishing company...online or hardcopy.

Press??? seriously. Come on, are you even buying that?

TAM

The NIST reports were published by NIST. That is, self-published. Not much different than some guy putting something on the Net.

 

[BigAl]

Great. Where is it?

We're talking about something that was sitting there for several hours. Not about something driving past witnesses.



Can you point out where these testimonies would be found?

I am referring to the NIST report on WTC7 that Big Al cited. What are you referring to?

Please show us these testimonials.

Follow the footnotes.

Good to know. So, if they're not blaming the corner damage, and they're not blaming the large gash in the back that you insist is there but that they don't bother modelling in their analysis, then I guess we're just back to the fires, huh? Okey dokey.

Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. Anything else that happened to that building was peripheral to the fundamental cause.

Were it not for unfought fire, WTC7 would have survived 9/11 as a damaged structure to be demolished at a later date,

 

[beachnut]

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

over 9 years of failure, no evidence for CD.

 

[cmatrix]

OK, let's take a look at what you said, and see who's made a glaring mistake.



Let's take an example. Suppose a mass m is initially supported at height H1. It then falls to height H2 at an arbitrarily low speed, retarded in its fall by collapsing supports of negligible mass. After reaching height H2, it then falls at an acceleration of g to a height H3, at which point its energy is measured.

"All the available gravitational potential energy" is, of course, equal to mg(H1-H3). However, the problem specifies that the object is near-stationary at height H2, therefore it has only fallen at freefall though a height (H2-H3), and its kinetic energy is equal to mg(H2-H3). There's an additional energy of mg(H1-H2) that is not present as kinetic energy.

Let's make the example a little more realistic, and assume that the falling mass has some kinetic energy K1 when it reaches height H2. However, by definition, its fall to this point has been slowed, so we know that K1<mg(H1-H2). The kinetic energy at H3 is now equal to mg(H2-H3)+K1, which is less than mg(H1-H3); the difference is mg(H1-H2)-K1, which must be greater than zero. Therefore, we have an object in free fall, not all of whose available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

Therefore, your statement that "With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" is inconsistent with simple Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, then, you don't understand Newtonian physics. (I'm being charitable here and assuming you're merely incompetent, rather than lying.)

Did anyone recognise the example, by the way? Clue: the name ends in 7.

Dave

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

 

[beachnut]

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

E=mgh.

9 years of failure and you can't do the physics? why?

 

[cmatrix]

OK, Horatius, let me take this one.

Ergo, there are two possibilities here.

1. You are arguing the following position:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is characteristic of controlled demolitions.
(c) This, in fact, only happens in controlled demolitions.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

If this is your position, then (a) is already demonstrated. You have not proven (b) or (c). All you've done so far is suggest that freefall collapse wouldn't be surprising in a controlled demolition, which is nowhere near proving either. So, at the moment, your reasoning has a hole in it. Horatius has suggested how you might address that hole.

2. You are arguing some other position.

In which case, you haven't communicated effectively what that position is.

Dave

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

 

[cmatrix]

The firemen watching WTC7 burn got it right; unfought fire was the root cause of the collapse.

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

 

[Horatius]

Controlled demolitions don't require free fall. In fact it's quite expensive to have free fall in a CD. You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way. Most CDs use gravity to help remove the resiting structure.

Okay, so you've admitted that it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure, correct?


You also indicate that creating a CD that produces a free-fall period is "quite expensive". Can we also assume it's more difficult and complicated to do that?


So then, you have to explain: if such a free-fall period is not necessary for a CD, why then did They pay extra, and put in the extra effort, to produce such a period of free-fall, if such is not necessary? Why did They go out of their way to leave such an obvious (to you, at least) smoking gun?

 

[Horatius]

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

Quoted so we can hold you to this later.

 

[alienentity]

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

1) You wrote earlier

Controlled demolitions don't require free fall..... You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way.

So now you are arguing against yourself....a little schizophrenic perhaps, but par for the course really

You are claiming that only CD can produce freefall, so the burden of proof is actually on you, not on NIST. NIST is not claiming CD, and they have indeed produced copious engineering evidence for fire-induced collapse. NIST has met the burden of proof for its hypothesis.

Where is your evidence? M.I.A. after 9 years.

 

[alienentity]

Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse.

Provide your proof. Now. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

 

[carlitos]

No they got it wrong. A fire-initiated collapse is a gravity driven collapse. Free fall is impossible in a gravity driven collapse. One counter example will prove your case but you can never produce it because it is impossible.

Videos of objects falling in a "gravity-driven collapse" at free fall and faster than free fall have been posted in this very thread. Your failure to understand these forces while offering a reward to prove something about physics results in an arrogance to ignorance ratio off the charts.

 

[cmatrix]

Please tell that to Richard Gage

Why? He's the one I heard it from.

 

[DGM]

cmatix:
Wouldn't it be cool if you could actually argue physics like the big boys?

 

[alienentity]

Please tell that to Richard Gage

Why? He's the one I heard it from.

 

[cmatrix]

OK, I'm a little slow.

A - "Controlled demolitions don't require free fall."
B - "Most CDs use gravity to help remove the resisting structure."
C - "...the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC 7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds."

Can someone walk me through this logic? C does not appear to follow from A and B. Was the demolition of the Salomon Brothers building a "controlled demolition" specifically because it doesn't look like one?

Also, the highlighted portion of C is erroneous, but that's already been pointed out before.

Simple, you missed D - "The only known way to cause a building to free fall is by blowing out all the resisting structure with explosives."