Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Newtons Bit]

Or we could go back to where this all started.

I'd still like to see what units ergo thinks we should express molecular kinetic energy of solids in since he thinks temperature is the wrong way to do it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I can't tell if it's outright lying or deep, deep stupidity. Either way, it's pretty disgusting.

And you wonder why people stop coming here.

Do you feel no shame in that your current (incorrect) line of attack is directly at odds with statements by you made just a few hours ago?

 

[GlennB]

Amazing! Now you are saying it's impossible for CD to have free fall. ......

Er,no. That's what's called in the trade a 'strawman argument'.

A CD could cause a period of freefall if it were carefully engineered to do so. In practice it doesn't because there's no need to go to such lengths.

The 8-storey 'freefall' at WTC7 is - if you step back, stay calm and really think about it - powerful evidence against CD.

 

[carlitos]

Just a reminder

Did a hockey game just end? Or am I just this popular?

Lots of luck guys. As ever, thanks for the free physics lessons though.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Damn... I was really hoping to see evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Instead I see two and a half pages and counting of pointless bickering over what "temperature" means. And Bush, Rove and Cheney get to spend their retirements collecting big fat checks.

Thanks, Ergo and Cmatrix. They couldn't have done it without you.

 

[cmatrix]

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

Videos, photos, computer models. NIST has had these forms of evidence, and used them all along with their expertise in the fields in question to come up with a reasonable, sound theory on the collapse.

What do you have? The opinions of non experts speculating, unable to back up their claims with science or mathematics and that is it.

If you have found no empirical evidence in the report then you either (a) didnt read it, and/or didn't understand it or science

Yes when you're vanquished you can't debate any more. Again, I am very familiar with the NIST reports and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 8 stories of resisting structure was removed solely by buckling to allow the free fall period. The reason you don't support your ridiculous pronouncements is not because you're too tired but simply because no such evidence exists. You believe the crackpot NIST story merely on faith, not due to evidence.

 

[carlitos]

At least NIST and the 9/11 Commission wrote a crackpot story to explain the events of 9/11, which puts them several orders of magnitude ahead of the "truth" movement.

 

[DGM]

Yes, you can, DGM. It starts right here.

Sure. Now applying what you have learned what do you think he gets wrong?

 

[cmatrix]

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

ROFL Yes you've "addressed" this point before just as you do now with completely unsupported hand-waving pronouncements containing no valid science or mathematical calculation. Similarly NIST's crackpot fairly tale contains absolutely no valid science or mathematical calculation to explain the free fall period, just completely unsupported hand-waving pronouncements. That makes their crackpot theory faith-based not science based. Keep up the faith.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You believe the crackpot NIST story merely on faith, not due to evidence.

I believe the NIST story based on a knowledge of how steel behaves under fire conditions and the vast evidence of massive fires throughout WTC7.

 

[cmatrix]

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

What I understand is the straw man arguments like yours are completely illogical. What I clearly showed was not that it is impossible for a fire-initiated collapse including a period of free fall but that it is illogical to assume a non-prosaic explanation in favor of a prosaic one. Never in the history of the earth has a steel framed building been brought down solely due to fire (and gravity) and included a period of free fall. However quite regularly steel framed buildings are brought down by CD and logically could have a period of free fall if enough explosives were used. I showed again your position is pseudo-science and faith-based not rational science-based.

 

[beachnut]

Yes when you're vanquished you can't debate any more. Again, I am very familiar with the NIST reports and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 8 stories of resisting structure was removed solely by buckling to allow the free fall period. ...

This is called talk, you post is nonsense.

Where is your paper with evidence and proof? thought so


You don't realize the main energy in a CD is due to gravity. Only one of your comprehension problems. You have not shown anything yet! Just BS and delusions.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ever hear of blasting mats? covert cd is not going to look the same as overt cd.

invoke ---- the mattress wrapped charges!!!!

 

[cmatrix]

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

All I've been doing is explaining how NIST's crackpot theory is wrong. In science if you propose a theory, particularly one that involves extraordinary claims, you must back that theory up with evidence. NIST has provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to explain the free fall period. That means their theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

 

[excaza]

All I've been doing is explaining how NIST's crackpot theory is wrong. In science if you propose a theory, particularly one that involves extraordinary claims, you must back that theory up with evidence. NIST has provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to explain the free fall period. That means their theory is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science.

No you haven't. You've been screaming "free fall" over and over again hoping it will suddenly mean something.

 

[DGM]

All I've been doing is explaining how NIST's crackpot theory is wrong.

No. What you've been doing is explaining why YOU think it's wrong. Somehow I don't think you know the difference.

 

[cmatrix]

But you prefer to believe that explosives removed the resisting structure with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Even if there was no supporting evidence whatsoever of CD it is the better theory because unlike NIST's crackpot theory, it is consistent with physical reality.

 

[cmatrix]

LOL @ 'blasting mats' - cmatrix is getting debating tips from SteveAustin.

Dude, These were big steel and glass office buildings. Maybe you missed it.

If you have a point I love to hear it.

 

[BigAl]

If you have a point I love to hear it.

You seem to think that blasting mats do something to hush high explosive detonation.

 

[cmatrix]

Ah. So after the building was evacuated they ran around installing thousands of 'blasting mats'. Which need heavy plant to lift them into place. Then fixing to walls and columns (how?). Inside the building. With nobody noticing the huge piles of 'blasting mats' lying around beforehand. Righto.

lol

If WTC 7 was CD it would have had to have been setup at least two weeks before. Blasting mats are a technology used to dampen the sound and collateral damage caused by explosives. Who's to say the perpetrators didn't have access to some sort of new lightweight blasting mat technology.