Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[beachnut]

As I have repeatedly said, with my statement: "When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy"..."

I was going to say you left out the, "I am cmatrix, and I approve this post". Would you still be a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you understood physics? You have no idea what physics is.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So can we finally put this excruciatingly asinine excercise in pedantic futility aside so we can concentrate on the topic at hand: Dave Thomas's (and other JREF NIST apologists') unwavering belief in an unreplicated unreproducible and unprecedented theory with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever.

Since the theory we subscribe to is in fact supported by all the available evidence, your request is rejected on grounds of logical impossibility.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Since the theory we subscribe to is in fact supported by all the available evidence, your request is rejected on grounds of logical impossibility.

Dave

But but.... you must admit that the CT version, any CT version really, is supported by immense amounts of NON-available evidence, and if we simply inflate the number of unspoorted claims, this mountain of non-available will soon outnumber your "all the available evidence", and beat you!

 

[Dave Rogers]

But but.... you must admit that the CT version, any CT version really, is supported by immense amounts of NON-available evidence, and if we simply inflate the number of unspoorted claims, this mountain of non-available will soon outnumber your "all the available evidence", and beat you!

That's true. All the made-up evidence supports the CT, and all the nonexistent evidence would support the CT if it existed. And, hey, if you add enough zeroes, you get a positive number, don't you? That's the whole point of integration!

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Since the theory we subscribe to is in fact supported by all the available evidence, your request is rejected on grounds of logical impossibility.

Dave

What "evidence" is that? The only "evidence" I know of is a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. The data the model is based on is refused access to independent researchers. IOW there is absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in.

 

[twinstead]

What "evidence" is that? The only "evidence" I know of is a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. The data the model is based on is refused access to independent researchers. IOW there is absolutely no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in.

Get a legitimate scientific, engineering, law enforcement, or judicial organization to agree and you'll be cooking with gas!

 

[TSR]

Get a legitimate scientific, engineering, law enforcement, or judicial organization to agree and you'll be cooking with gas!

.
Instead of just passing it?
.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What "evidence" is that? The only "evidence" I know of is a computer model that doesn't even show free fall.

I'm going to stop and check here, because your inability to communicate even the most simple concepts has been a problem in the past. Do you mean that the NIST model is the only evidence you know of that supports the conclusion that collapse was due to fire, or that it's the only evidence you know of of any kind? You see, anyone sane reading your post would assume you mean the latter, but I'm going to be charitable enough to let you correct yourself and say you mean the former before I point out how tragically wrong you are.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

It's almost like those idiot truthers who proclaim, "the official story has zero evidence to support it. How can you sheeple just believe what the government tells you!!!11!!"

Weird.

 

[excaza]

I'm going to stop and check here, because your inability to communicate even the most simple concepts has been a problem in the past. Do you mean that the NIST model is the only evidence you know of that supports the conclusion that collapse was due to fire, or that it's the only evidence you know of of any kind? You see, anyone sane reading your post would assume you mean the latter, but I'm going to be charitable enough to let you correct yourself and say you mean the former before I point out how tragically wrong you are.

Dave

No, see, "only" doesn't really mean "only"

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe he means it's the only available evidence he knows of.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

I'm going to stop and check here, because your inability to communicate even the most simple concepts has been a problem in the past. Do you mean that the NIST model is the only evidence you know of that supports the conclusion that collapse was due to fire, or that it's the only evidence you know of of any kind? You see, anyone sane reading your post would assume you mean the latter, but I'm going to be charitable enough to let you correct yourself and say you mean the former before I point out how tragically wrong you are.

Dave

Dave cut the crap and post your evidence. Unless of course it's imaginary. In that case just make a series of pompous unsupported pronouncements as JREF "debunkers" consistently do.

 

[TJM]

I'm going to stop and check here, because your inability to communicate even the most simple concepts has been a problem in the past. Do you mean that the NIST model is the only evidence you know of that supports the conclusion that collapse was due to fire, or that it's the only evidence you know of of any kind? You see, anyone sane reading your post would assume you mean the latter, but I'm going to be charitable enough to let you correct yourself and say you mean the former before I point out how tragically wrong you are.

Dave

Dave cut the crap and post your evidence. Unless of course it's imaginary. In that case just make a series of pompous unsupported pronouncements as JREF "debunkers" consistently do.

Dodge noted, which as you can see, is a single statement which is both modest and supported.

Happy?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave cut the crap and post your evidence. Unless of course it's imaginary. In that case just make a series of pompous unsupported pronouncements as JREF "debunkers" consistently do.

OK, I'll take that as a statement that either (a) you sincerely believe that the NIST animation of the WTC7 collapse is the sole piece of evidence that exists of any kind concerning the cause of the WTC7 collapse, and that you deny the existence of any videos of the collapse, the sound tracks of any such videos, measurements of the rate of collapse derived from any such videos, any pre-existing plans or photographs that describe the construction of WTC7, any testimonial evidence concerning the condition of WTC7 prior to collapse, and in fact any evidence that WTC7 existed at all, in which case, having argued from that evidence, you're clearly so insane that everything you say is completely worthless, or that (b) you will string together any group of words that occurs to you to try to advance a counter-argument, regardless of whether that group of words even makes sense, in which case you're so dishonest that everything you say is completely worthless.

Or hadn't you noticed that, if you pretend the evidence doesn't exist, then your arguments all disappear with it?

Dave

 

[Fly Poster]

The NIST model shows this...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/nmrc2.gif[/qimg]
Floppy upper section whith no lower storey vertical movement a-goin-on.

That video is one of two videos from NIST, the one you show has had a bit of very important information edited out from it, and does not act much like the collapse of building 7. That is because it is a modelling of the collapse WITHOUT the structural damage from WTC1.

I do like the way truthers have removed this bit of info, show this video and then shout: "it looks nothing like the collapse!"
Lol.

 

[cmatrix]

OK, I'll take that as a statement that either (a) you sincerely believe that the NIST animation of the WTC7 collapse is the sole piece of evidence that exists of any kind concerning the cause of the WTC7 collapse, and that you deny the existence of any videos of the collapse, the sound tracks of any such videos, measurements of the rate of collapse derived from any such videos, any pre-existing plans or photographs that describe the construction of WTC7, any testimonial evidence concerning the condition of WTC7 prior to collapse, and in fact any evidence that WTC7 existed at all, in which case, having argued from that evidence, you're clearly so insane that everything you say is completely worthless, or that (b) you will string together any group of words that occurs to you to try to advance a counter-argument, regardless of whether that group of words even makes sense, in which case you're so dishonest that everything you say is completely worthless.

Or hadn't you noticed that, if you pretend the evidence doesn't exist, then your arguments all disappear with it?

Dave

You stated "the theory we subscribe to is in fact supported by all the available evidence". You have presented absolutely no evidence that suggests reasonable scientifically oriented people should subscribe to your crackpot theory rather than the profoundly more reasonable CD theory. Why? Because none of the "evidence" you have explains the free fall period or the intricate roll to the south. CD and only CD can best explain both these two key phenomena. This proves the NIST defenders here have only faith-based pseudo-science on their side not science. This proves the CD theory is the best and only theory that can explain the WTC 7 collapse.

 

[excaza]

You have presented absolutely no evidence that suggests reasonable scientifically oriented people should subscribe to your crackpot theory rather than the profoundly more reasonable CD theory. Why? Because none of the "evidence" you have explains the free fall period or the intricate roll to the south.

You ignoring and/or not understanding it doesn't suddenly cause it to stop existing.

 

[GlennB]

....... This proves the CD theory is the best and only theory that can explain the WTC 7 collapse.

Then could you explain the absence of a large number (many hundreds, minimum) of closely synchronised flashes and booms? You've been asked before and all you could come up with was vast, heavy muffling mats. Then you failed to explain how these 400kg monsters could be shipped in and strapped to internal columns and walls.

CD needs to be implemented, cmatrix, it doesn't happen because evil perps simply wish it to happen. So far you have come up with absolutely nothing to explain how. Zip. Nada. How about trying? Just once?

 

[cmatrix]

Then could you explain the absence of a large number (many hundreds, minimum) of closely synchronised flashes and booms? You've been asked before and all you could come up with was vast, heavy muffling mats. Then you failed to explain how these 400kg monsters could be shipped in and strapped to internal columns and walls.

CD needs to be implemented, cmatrix, it doesn't happen because evil perps simply wish it to happen. So far you have come up with absolutely nothing to explain how. Zip. Nada. How about trying? Just once?

Romex blasting mats are lightweight and are designed to suppress noise and collateral damage:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ljXEmggmni8C&q=romex#v=snippet&q=romex&f=false

Again I will be happy to present a full CD theory when you all come to the overwhelming realization that the NIST WTC7 theory is pseudo-scientific crackpot garbage.

 

[excaza]

"If you acknowledge that I'm right, I'll show you why I'm right"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.