• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Dave Thomas

ergo said:
His statement suggested that temperature has some kind of active ability to do "work" on the steel. The bonds weaken at a particular temperature. This is caused by heat, not by temperature itself.
Click to expand...

Temperature is the degree to which heat has excited a substance. In the case of steel, the same amount of heat may cause the same volumn of steel to become more excited because the excited atoms do not have time to excite other atoms. This is part of the reason steel warps when heated differently over a wide area. This is why failures due to heat can be localized.

Is that helpful?
 
cmatrix said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not an attempt to change topics. It's simply a way of providing some support for the logical theory that blast mats would have been used to deaden the sound and hide the visuals of explosions.

If anybody wants to talk about the squibs they can continue on the dedicated thread in the hyperlink.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6423790&postcount=27 hyperlink
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because you're incapable of communicating what you're talking about. And even if that was what you meant, you'll see from my second example that it's still wrong; an object, while falling in freefall, still has available GPE that has not been converted to KE.

Still, it's far from the only area where you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Dave
Click to expand...

ROFL An object in free fall has GPE but it is not available to do work. All the available GPE has been converted to KE. That is the definition of free fall.
 
Oystein said:
Yes. GPE, converted into KE, can do the same amount of work as the original GPE (minus the work already done destroying building contents).

To test this, consider the work a hammer can do after it fell from a hight of 5 feet, when landing on your foot.
Click to expand...

Uh...you don't get it. When GPE is converted to KE the GPE no longer exists.
 
cmatrix said:
ROFL An object in free fall has GPE but it is not available to do work. All the available GPE has been converted to KE. That is the definition of free fall.
Click to expand...

So all the GPE of a satellite was converted to KE? Interesting.
 
cmatrix said:
I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire .....
Click to expand...

Do you? Really? Look up blacksmith's weld and you can prove yourself wrong in the peace and quiet of your own home. Or even <gasp> check the Wiki page on eutectics and follow the link to brazing.

But waffle randomly in public and you'll be embarrassed in public.
 
cmatrix said:
Ah so while the building is standing the fires are not hot enough to melt steel. But after it collapses into a pile with no oxygen the fires are hot enough to melt steel.
Click to expand...

No.

Your completely unsupported hand-waving pronouncement that no nano-thermite particles were found is very convincing.
Click to expand...

Everything that the lunatics involved with the thermite research have presented as evidence contains silicon and resembles paint in nearly all other aspects.

There is no silicon in thermite. There is silicon in paint.

All of Jones' thermite microphotos appear to contain kaolin crystals.

It's freaking paint.
 
cmatrix said:
I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire but can be caused by thermitics.
Click to expand...

This stands in direct contradiction to the published Worcester Polytechnic studies which not only concluded that such reactions occurred in the WTC rubble pile fires, but also replicated the formation of the sulfidation structures in experiments.

Furthermore, your "knowledge" is erroneous. Look up the melting points of FeS and FeO, then compare that with the temperature thermite is known to achive. That right there by itself should put to rest this proposition that "thermitics" produced the sort of eutectic remains noted in the WTC steel. If that's not enough, study the time it takes for such structures to form, then compare to the reaction kinetics of thermite redox reactions. No matter which direction you approach things from, eutectic formations contradict the proposal that thermite was used.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
^^This^^

Context is important. A productive way to have this conversation would be to state a hypothesis that explains the events of 9/11/2001, and then to show how "the problems with the NIST report" fit into that hypothesis. Otherwise, it's a bunch of incredulous Gish-Gallop that goes nowhere.

I'd love to see an illustration of "the difference between thermite and nanothermite" and how this fits into whatever scenario, for instance. So far we have seen two mutually-exclusive positions (thermitics AND explosives) being posited; we've had "blast mats" made of magical material that is invisible for 2 weeks and muffles sound far more than ~10dB, "nanothermite" being different than thermite, and a general rape of the laws of physics. It's painful.

Truthers, just state what you think happened. This will get your ideas across so you aren't misunderstood, and you have a whole sub-forum full of peer review to improve on your ideas. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

I think you make at least one good point here. This thread is supposed to be about the physics problems with the official NIST theory on how WTC 7 came down. All the NIST supporters have to do is prove that buckling can remove eight stories of structure in an exquisitely timed manner so that WTC 7 could fall the way it did. Obviously they can't because it's impossible. So they have a crackpot faith-based theory supported by pseudo-science not science. When everyone here can come to terms with that I am willing to present a scientific fact-based theory in a separate thread. Until then, doing so would only generate more reams and reams of off-topic hand-waving BS.
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
I think you make at least one good point here. This thread is supposed to be about the physics problems with the official NIST theory on how WTC 7 came down. All the NIST supporters have to do is prove that buckling can remove eight stories of structure in an exquisitely timed manner so that WTC 7 could fall the way it did. Obviously they can't because it's impossible. So they have a crackpot faith-based theory supported by pseudo-science not science. When everyone here can come to terms with that I am willing to present a scientific fact-based theory in a separate thread. Until then, doing so would only generate more reams and reams of off-topic hand-waving BS.
Click to expand...

Except that the FEA performed by NIST showed the 8-stories of columns buckling. If that doesn't prove it for you, what will?
 
ergo said:
You know, it doesn't really matter. I get the gist of your "smoky fires are nevertheless hot" thesis. What isn't explained is, in a 6-hour fire, why would those fires keep themselves to an inner portion of the building? The building isn't all that wide between the south and north walls. Maybe because they were small and smouldering?
Click to expand...
No. That was where most of the oxygen was.
 
cmatrix said:
I think you make at least one good point here. This thread is supposed to be about the physics problems with the official NIST theory on how WTC 7 came down. All the NIST supporters have to do is prove that buckling can remove eight stories of structure in an exquisitely timed manner so that WTC 7 could fall the way it did. Obviously they can't because it's impossible. So they have a crackpot faith-based theory supported by pseudo-science not science. When everyone here can come to terms with that I am willing to present a scientific fact-based theory in a separate thread. Until then, doing so would only generate more reams and reams of off-topic hand-waving BS.
Click to expand...

"Exquisitely-timed manner" LOL. Poison the well much?

Burden of proof shifting is not allowed. The engineering and scientific community have generally accepted the theory for the WTC's collapse. The NIST has provided what IS the commonly-held narrative of 9-11. If your tiny cult wishes to claim it was something else YOU need to prove that a CD theory can explain what was observed.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Except that the FEA performed by NIST showed the 8-stories of columns buckling. If that doesn't prove it for you, what will?
Click to expand...
Using the NIST FEA as proof would be perhaps more useful...if you can show me some video of the top of WTC 7 behaving like this...
604072600.jpg

nmrc2.gif


Looks a bit floppy.
 
When they say 'view from the North' does that literally mean what the human eye should see ?
 
cmatrix said:
I think you make at least one good point here. This thread is supposed to be about the physics problems with the official NIST theory on how WTC 7 came down. All the NIST supporters have to do is prove that buckling can remove eight stories of structure in an exquisitely timed manner so that WTC 7 could fall the way it did. Obviously they can't because it's impossible. So they have a crackpot faith-based theory supported by pseudo-science not science. When everyone here can come to terms with that I am willing to present a scientific fact-based theory in a separate thread. Until then, doing so would only generate more reams and reams of off-topic hand-waving BS.
Click to expand...

I'm confident that we would all very much welcome hearing about your scientific fact-based theory in a separate thread.

You'd be about the first Truther around here to make a genuine attempt at an extensive and consistent narrative. Fire away.

p.s. any more thoughts about hauling those 300kg blast mats into WTC7 and hanging them from the columns and walls? You know ..... that subject we were discussing but you dropped? Also the eutectics business .... no? OK. You have your theory to type up, we understand. Looking forward to reading it ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom