Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

Nothing counts but visual evidence?

which means that we have no proof that life existed on earth prior to the 20th century...

TAM

 

[uke2se]

Nothing counts but visual evidence?

There's more stipulations, actually:

1. He has to be able to understand it.

2. He must agree with you.

3. You must agree that the evidence points to inside jobby job.

All other evidence is invalid.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not the one with the understanding problem. I must have missed the videos of gravity-driven free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

You missed the fact CD's primary energy source for destructions of buildings is gravity. When you grasp physics you will drop your delusions on 911.

 

[A W Smith]

Natural collapse with a period of free fall acceleration is possible

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

No it is not impossible to have a period of free fall for the north face. If you remember the yardstick and ball experiment (or haven't hand waved it away yet.) Imagine the beams and slabs connecting the core structure to the perimeter columns as those yardsticks, The ball end representing the load on the columns of the north face. The interior core collapse precedes the outside perimeter collapse as shown when the penthouse drops through the roof. The core representing the hinge end of the yardsticks pulls in on the perimeter buckling the columns ( yes even 57 SIMULTANEOUSLY if you insist,) and there you have it, Global collapse ensues with a portion of it at free fall acceleration with no explosives at all necessary. We can close this thread now.

 

[tsig]

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

So now your explanation is, "I don't know[handwave, handwave] they're psychopaths".

 

[The Platypus]

Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

Psychopaths in 911 cults, sure do love too play games over of the deaths of 3000 people because they are so incompetent they believe 911 is some bizarre super complex conspiracy. These very same psychopaths also want yet another investigation, not caring one bit about wasting other people's money simply because all the previous and other investigations do not agree with their bizarre conspiracy nonsense.

Ya, i see what you mean... I watch out for people like that...

 

[GlennB]

Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed.

So, this is your theory - that every possible support is removed by explosive charges over a full 8 storeys.

It contains a fatal flaw. In round numbers, 8 storeys of WTC7 columns comes to some 650 column lengths in total. Each would need a pair of cutter charges top+bottom (otherwise cut column ends would spear falling floors, creating resistance). This makes approx. 2600 explosions to do the job, set off simultaneously, the majority of which would be by the walls and windows.

See the problem? It didn't happen.

There was no massive synchronised array of dazzling flashes and 130db booms. The kind that would be crystal clear on every video, would have flung smashed glass across large areas of S Manhattan and would have sounded like the loudest clap of thunder in NY's history and sent the needle off the scale of every audio recording.

There's something wrong with your theory. Where you've gone fundamentally wrong is in supposing that the measurement techniques are capable of determining between absolutely zero resistance and negligible, unmeasurable resistance. You're taking things much too literally and reaching unwarranted conclusions that are defied by reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I believe the reports of the firefighters.

All of them, or just the ones you want to?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

"Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block." –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

And lots more in the same vein. So, do you believe the reports of the firefighters now, or do you still think there were only a few small fires in WTC7?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

If you must tell lies, try not to be so obvious. The energy to break up the structure, as you admit above, was supplied by GPE in the first part of the collapse; you then change your mind and pretend that I haven't accounted for it. I can understand you disagreeing with me, but now you're disagreeing with yourself.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

If the damage was from WTC1, then there would have been several hours in which that gash would have been right there, gaping at everyone. No one caught an image of it? Surely there must be something in those 80 gigs of video.

There is. Many of us have shown you examples. You ignore them.

...
I believe the reports of the firefighters.

Good, then you will believe the 40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. You can find their names and full-text transcripts via the links, below. 40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
31 mention collapse expected​

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGds_AjhkwP4V4RW9zTNH4GK3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackage...812_WTC_GRAPHICmet_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Also http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

And why was no firefighting done?

I see you still haven't read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304. If you had, you'd know why.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf​

Do you ignore all our responses?

 

[Fly Poster]

Okay, so here's the second version. Who knew Cartoon Physics was subject to Peer Review?


[qimg]http://upload.stripgenerator.com/strip/32/73/24/00/00/full.png[/qimg]



And cross-posted peer review at that!





I'll take a look at that, but it seem to me, we could have several different versions of one- and two-point failures, depending on which points actually fail. I only showed one example of each above, as I suspect they're functionally interchangeable.

Put that in your "how could multiple collumns fail simultaniously" pipe and smoke it....

Good work.

 

[RedIbis]

WTC1's collapse severed the water main, so they didn't have enough water pressure to do anything useful.

Dave

And yet there's a rather huge body of water just a few hundred yards from WTC 7.

 

[BigAl]

And yet there's a rather huge body of water just a few hundred yards from WTC 7.

And?

 

[T.A.M.]

And yet there's a rather huge body of water just a few hundred yards from WTC 7.

yes, and imagine, all those firefighters, The entire world watching, and no one suggested it or capitalized on it.

Seriously Red...seriously.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

yes, and imagine, all those firefighters, The entire world watching, and no one suggested it or capitalized on it.

Seriously Red...seriously.

TAM

Maybe people did suggest it.

 

[ergo]

All of them, or just the ones you want to?

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

And lots more in the same vein. So, do you believe the reports of the firefighters now, or do you still think there were only a few small fires in WTC7?

As I already stated, I was referring to the testimonials included in the NIST report. Looking at the wtc7lies site you refer to, I do have some skepticism over some of those reports. Tell me what you think of this:

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16)

Do you know where Washington Street is in lower Manhattan? And he would also have been looking at the north face of it, where there was no damage. Yet he says all 47 floors were on fire right before the building fell. Can you show me the photo or video evidence of this? Because I think most people would agree that the building was not engulfed in flames when it fell. Nor did the smoke issuing from it indicate a massive fire.

So is this an account you would believe? If so, why? ETA: and why would the building "shake like an earthquake hit it" first?

Many of the statements contradict each other:

"and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse..." (not supported by the visual evidence) ..."Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.".... "...Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time." .... "They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily...." ...."the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building."

And finally, the statements claiming that the building was completely engulfed in flames before it collapsed is simply not supported by the visual evidence, as we all know.

Even if they were true, can you tell us why NIST wouldn't have used those testimonials in their report, since they would certainly bolster the fire-only argument? Is it because they know everybody can see with their own eyes that the building was not engulfed in flames as it fell?

WTC7lies indeed.

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe people did suggest it.

You'll have to do better then that.

1. Evidence it was suggested.
2. Evidence the suggestions were rejected.
3. Evidence their reasons for rejecting it were not valid.

If you have all three of those...I am listening.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

You'll have to do better then that.

1. Evidence it was suggested.
2. Evidence the suggestions were rejected.
3. Evidence their reasons for rejecting it were not valid.

If you have all three of those...I am listening.

TAM

That's like me asking you to prove that "no one suggested it."

I put the word "maybe" in front of my statement because I was speaking hypothetically, which is what you were doing.

You might not think so, but you weren't doing anything but speculating.

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

 

[BigAl]

Many of the statements contradict each other:

"and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse..." (not supported by the visual evidence) ..."Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.".... "...Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time." .... "They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily...." ...."the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building."

What contradiction? They all report WTC7 on fire.

And finally, the statements claiming that the building was completely engulfed in flames before it collapsed is simply not supported by the visual evidence, as we all know.

To the extent any fireman said that, hyperbole is Twoofer bait. Ergo took the bait hook, line and sinker.

40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. You can find their names and full-text transcripts via the links, below. 40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
31 mention likelihood of collapse.​

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGds_AjhkwP4V4RW9zTNH4GK3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackage...m/site/wtc7lies/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

 

[T.A.M.]

That's like me asking you to prove that "no one suggested it."

I put the word "maybe" in front of my statement because I was speaking hypothetically, which is what you were doing.

You might not think so, but you weren't doing anything but speculating.

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

You are right, in that I do not recall the specific reading (I think I read some) about attempts to use the Hudson as water for firefighting on that day. What I also do not recall, in any way, is a mention that it was suggested, but ignored or waved away.

See what happens when people "speculate"?

TAM