Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

I've read the report many times. There is absolutely no evidence there whatsoever to explain how fire caused WTC 7 to fall the way it did only unsupported pronouncements. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing exact page numbers.

See my post above. I am done arguing the small points until you, as you have been asked many many times, provide scientific proof (your opinoon is worthless, show us the science, the math) of their innacuracies. The video and photographic evidence along with their computer models all support the theory they have proposed. You do not like it, and i am ok with that, but it does not change it.

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

it is pretty darn ironic to be called an idiot by somebody who himself has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Welcome to 9/11 CT.

Where our supertanker of irony runneth o'er.

 

[DGM]

Sorry....nice try. Read the report...it is in there, and i am done arguing the minutia with you or any other truthers.

I don't know why your suggesting he reads the report. You need at least a basic knowledge of engineering and physics to understand it.

 

[T.A.M.]

it is pretty darn ironic to be called an idiot by somebody who himself has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Yes, you notice i merely responded to the notion that i was uneducated in science. He immediately takes that and conflates it so i am expected to be an expert in structural engineering...given he hasnt a clue about it i find it VERY ironic.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

Regarding (a): you are right...the part of the WTC7 collapse that was freefall was 2.25 seconds of the NORTH FACE of the building, somewhere in the MIDDLE of the entire collapse.

Regarding (b): You have provided ZERO proof of this, and your opinion by itself is worthless...got evidence?

Regarding (c): You have provided ZERO evidence of this...got evidence?

Regarding (d): see my comments above.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

TAM

b. free fall is impossible in a fire-initiated collapse

Free fall requires absolutely no resisting structure. Fire produces gradual deformations in steel not precisely timed explosive removal. This is a common fact. Your position that fire can remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner is what is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof which you cannot in any way supply.

c. free fall can only be explained by controlled demolition

Since fire cannot remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner this structure must have been removed by artificial means (controlled demolition).

 

[BigAl]

I don't know why your suggesting he reads the report. You need at least a basic knowledge of engineering and physics to understand it.

And possibly the ability to read.

 

[T.A.M.]

I've read the report many times. There is absolutely no evidence there whatsoever to explain how fire caused WTC 7 to fall the way it did only unsupported pronouncements. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing exact page numbers.

Oh, and by the way....what a dodge. I asked you to provide your evidence, and you, like a schoolyard child, stick your thumb on your nose and reply, "no, you show me yours."


Like i said, dodge noted.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

oh I love this one...look at the grand proclamations (and as usual, totally from uneducated personal incredulity)...

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!

Beyond Stundie worthy...we need a new category for this.

TAM

One counter-example will prove me wrong. Please provide proof a steel framed building was ever brought down solely due to fire (and gravity) and included a period of free fall. If you can't, you believe in the crackpot NIST theory solely on faith.

 

[DGM]

One counter-example will prove me wrong. Please provide proof a steel framed building was ever brought down solely due to fire (and gravity) and included a period of free fall. If you can't, you believe in the crackpot NIST theory solely on faith.

So what do you think brought it down. Can you show a CD or any other collapse (at free-fall) of a steel framed building that DIDN'T collapse from fire?

 

[carlitos]

b. free fall is impossible in a fire-initiated collapse

Bare assertion

Free fall requires absolutely no resisting structure.

False.

Fire produces gradual deformations in steel not precisely timed explosive removal.

Straw man.

This is a common fact.

Irrelevant

Your position that fire can remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner

Strawman

is what is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof which you cannot in any way supply.

LOL

c. free fall can only be explained by controlled demolition

False.

Since fire cannot remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner this structure must have been removed by artificial means (controlled demolition).

Truther dogma. Why not re-write this a la the Nicene Creed.

PS - did you see the videos in this very thread that showed items falling at faster than free fall? Do you understand how those forces apply to the World Center 7 building?

 

[cmatrix]

Its possible that the Chinese did it. It is possible that DEW from space did it. It is possible that it was all a dream...

No it is not paranoia to state a possibility, but it sure isn't smart, rational, or logical to making proclamations and declarations based on one either.

TAM

ROFL Is it a fact or possibility that fire and gravity only brought down WTC 7? If it's a fact you'd have evidence. You have never ever provided any whatsoever just hand-waving.

 

[excaza]

ROFL Is it a fact or possibility that fire and gravity only brought down WTC 7? If it's a fact you'd have evidence. You have never ever provided any whatsoever just hand-waving.

It's been provided, you just don't understand it, nor do you show any interest in trying to understand it, so you act like a simpleton and say explosives or a laser beam from space did it.

 

[T.A.M.]

b. free fall is impossible in a fire-initiated collapse

Free fall requires absolutely no resisting structure. Fire produces gradual deformations in steel not precisely timed explosive removal. This is a common fact. Your position that fire can remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner is what is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof which you cannot in any way supply.

c. free fall can only be explained by controlled demolition

Since fire cannot remove resisting structure in a precisely timed explosive manner this structure must have been removed by artificial means (controlled demolition).

I have addressed this same crap already, others have as well. I just said I am done arguing until you provide evidence...proof. Your reply is not the proof, not the evidence you were asked for...try again.

SO far you are wrong on all accounts, however, your explanation (likely because it is wrong) has not been explained with valid science or mathematical calculation.

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

ROFL

"ROFL" isn't an argument. Done at inappropriate times and places, rolling on the floor laughing is a sign of severe mental illness.

 

[T.A.M.]

One counter-example will prove me wrong. Please provide proof a steel framed building was ever brought down solely due to fire (and gravity) and included a period of free fall. If you can't, you believe in the crackpot NIST theory solely on faith.

So even, EVEN (I will not indulge your lunacy with such a ridiculous search), if no example could be found, your rational means that the first time for anything in history NEVER REALLY HAPPENED, because it never happened before.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW ILLOGICAL THAT IS???

however, you need to watch your truther canards. The proper truther canard you are trying to sell is this.

"No steel framed SKYSCRAPER has every TOTALLY collapsed DUE TO FIRE." If you do not use the fully evolved canard, you will probably be proven wrong.

TAM

 

[excaza]

I wonder if he realizes the free fall of a portion of the building wasn't at the beginning of the collapse.

 

[T.A.M.]

ROFL Is it a fact or possibility that fire and gravity only brought down WTC 7? If it's a fact you'd have evidence. You have never ever provided any whatsoever just hand-waving.

I am not hand waving, I am calling you out as a fraud, who spouts the work of a physics teacher without having even his level of scientific background, let alone sufficient to deal with the issues at hand.

In all of your posts here, you have yet to show us WITH SCIENCE, MATH, OR EVIDENCE, how (A) Free fall of a segment of the building, at some point during the entire collapse, is not possible, or (B) how NIST got anything in their theory wrong.

Until you do that, we are done arguing the minutia.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

It's been provided, you just don't understand it, nor do you show any interest in trying to understand it, so you act like a simpleton and say explosives or a laser beam from space did it.

oops...I yelled at you, thinking it was him.

TAM

 

[excaza]

No, you have been provided, MANY TIMES on this forum, how you and your truther friends are making incorrect assumptions based on twisting of the facts, and yet you fail to understand (or more likely simply do not want to understand).

I have not said explosives or space beams did it. I may mock the retards in your group of cluster ******** for saying such things, but I have never said such....that type of tripe only comes from the simple minds of the TM.

TAM

Um. What?

 

[T.A.M.]

Um. What?

lol..see above. I saw the words, and out of the corner of my eye thought it was cmatrix...lol

My apologies to you and him.

TAM