Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[alienentity]

Haven't we been through this before? Since the "crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics" is simply your own STRAW MAN, I see no need to address it.

May I just say that your new beedunker avatar reminds me of two rock stars:

Sting
Gene Simmons

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

May I just say that your new beedunker avatar reminds me of two rock stars:

Sting
Gene Simmons

Thanks AE!

 

[cmatrix]

Haven't we been through this before? Since the "crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics" is simply your own STRAW MAN, I see no need to address it.

Strawman? The article Tom linked to clearly shows that the ridiculous theory you believe in is a completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics. If you disagree why don't you explain what exactly is wrong with the points made in the article instead of making completely unsupported false claims that I have committed the straw man fallacy.

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?

A theory that contains completely unsupported pronouncements is faith-based not science-based. Agree or disagree?

A theory that violates the laws of physics is a crackpot pseudo-science theory. Agree or disagree?

If you agree to all these three statements then you will have to counter the arguments made in the article or be seen as someone believing in a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Strawman? The article Tom linked to clearly shows that the ridiculous theory you believe in is a completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics.

Hey CMatrix I have an idea!

Why don't you take a plane ride up to 10,000, jump out of the plane without a parachute & see if you can defy the Law of Gravity? If you go splat, then you're logical thinking about the "violation of the Laws of Physics" is screwed.

 

[tsig]

Hey CMatrix I have an idea!

Why don't you take a plane ride up to 10,000, jump out of the plane without a parachute & see if you can defy the Law of Gravity? If you go splat, then you're logical thinking about the "violation of the Laws of Physics" is screwed.

Since net force=0 I predict he will not splat but will come to rest floating one foot above the ground or at worst will gently bounce\Heiwa physics

 

[alienentity]

Strawman?

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?

By this metric the arguments of 9/11 Truth fail. Careful Mr. Pot.

A theory that contains completely unsupported pronouncements is faith-based not science-based. Agree or disagree?

Such as unseen agents placing unknown and never-seen theoretical explosives, exploding without any audible or visual evidence; yes, I agree, that's a faith-based belief, not a scientific one.

You're arguing against 9/11 Truth tenets again.....oh, the irony!

A theory that violates the laws of physics is a crackpot pseudo-science theory. Agree or disagree?

Such as explosives that are silent? Or fires which cannot weaken steel? Or nanothermite which contains more energy than nanothermite possibly can? Yup, that's crackpot pseudo-science.

If you agree to all these three statements then you will have to counter the arguments made in the article or be seen as someone believing in a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory.

LOL, if you don't honour our nonsense-based, pseudo-scientific claptrap, your science-based theories are invalid? No, I don't think so.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Since net force=0 I predict he will not splat but will come to rest floating one foot above the ground or at worst will gently bounce\Heiwa physics

They're no "Superman"!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Strawman? The article Tom linked to clearly shows that the ridiculous theory you believe in is a completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics. If you disagree why don't you explain what exactly is wrong with the points made in the article instead of making completely unsupported false claims that I have committed the straw man fallacy.

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?

A theory that contains completely unsupported pronouncements is faith-based not science-based. Agree or disagree?

A theory that violates the laws of physics is a crackpot pseudo-science theory. Agree or disagree?

If you agree to all these three statements then you will have to counter the arguments made in the article or be seen as someone believing in a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory.

Hmph. From the article (your article) in question:

NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics

If you watch video of its fall you see it falls straight down symmetrically just like a typical controlled demolition. Such a collapse requires simultaneous removal or cutting of all vertical support structures. Yet the official story maintains that WTC 7 came down solely due to fire damage. How can normal office fires cause eight stories of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building could free fall for at least 2.25 seconds? Fire damage causes gradual weakening of steel not explosive simultaneous removal.

It gets even worse. Observing the video of WTC 7's fall a "crimp" or kink is seen near the middle of the building as it started to fall. In controlled demolitions such a crimp is caused by blowing the middle columns first and then proceeding to the sides so that the building falls in on itself and therefore minimizes damage to other buildings. WTC 7 also intricately rolled to the south at the end of the collapse. In controlled demolitions, such rolls are performed in order to minimize damage to one side. Note that ground zero was to the south of WTC 7 and valuable real estate was to the north. How can fire be so considerate?

I'd like to point out that in the first paragraph, you say "it falls straight down symmetrically just like a typical controlled demolition." But, by the second paragraph, it's "WTC 7 also intricately rolled to the south at the end of the collapse," indicating -- what else? a "controlled demolition"! And not just any old CD, but an expert demolition designed to save "valuable real estate."

wow, all roads lead to 9/11 truth, I suppose.

Now, there's not really a need for 40 pages of answering the OP.

NIST already answered it, and quite well. (hat tip to McHrozni; mentioned on this very thread on page 2 by ProBonoShill, and by others too numereous to mention.)

Here it is, again:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Now, let me spell it out for you. When you say "How can normal office fires cause eight stories of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building could free fall for at least 2.25 seconds? Fire damage causes gradual weakening of steel not explosive simultaneous removal," you're creating a straw-man.

What NIST actually says is that the slowing down (deceleration) of the tower's fall in Stage 1 is specifically because of "buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face."

No laws of physics broken here. Yes, those buckling columns slowed the descent of the tower.

The brief interval of freefall is precisely because the columns which were buckled during Stage 1 then provided "negligible support from the structure below" during Stage 2. Again, no laws of physics broken here.

Once the tower had descended that 80-100 feet, its descent was again slowed by collisions with structure below. That's Stage 3. Again, no laws of physics broken here.

Your straw-man is simply your insistence that NIST essentially says that the buckling stage is simultaneous with the free-fall stage.

NIST says nothing of the sort.

(Of course.)

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Deja Vu All Over Again

Perusing earlier pages in this thread, I had a real deja vu moment.

 

[twinstead]

Perusing earlier pages in this thread, I had a real deja vu moment.

Wow. Is it possible to plagiarise yourself?

 

[cmatrix]

Hmph. From the article (your article) in question:

NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics



I'd like to point out that in the first paragraph, you say "it falls straight down symmetrically just like a typical controlled demolition." But, by the second paragraph, it's "WTC 7 also intricately rolled to the south at the end of the collapse," indicating -- what else? a "controlled demolition"! And not just any old CD, but an expert demolition designed to save "valuable real estate."

wow, all roads lead to 9/11 truth, I suppose.

Now, there's not really a need for 40 pages of answering the OP.

NIST already answered it, and quite well. (hat tip to McHrozni; mentioned on this very thread on page 2 by ProBonoShill, and by others too numereous to mention.)

Here it is, again:
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 09/17/2010)



Now, let me spell it out for you. When you say "How can normal office fires cause eight stories of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building could free fall for at least 2.25 seconds? Fire damage causes gradual weakening of steel not explosive simultaneous removal," you're creating a straw-man.

What NIST actually says is that the slowing down (deceleration) of the tower's fall in Stage 1 is specifically because of "buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face."

No laws of physics broken here. Yes, those buckling columns slowed the descent of the tower.

The brief interval of freefall is precisely because the columns which were buckled during Stage 1 then provided "negligible support from the structure below" during Stage 2. Again, no laws of physics broken here.

Once the tower had descended that 80-100 feet, its descent was again slowed by collisions with structure below. That's Stage 3. Again, no laws of physics broken here.

Your straw-man is simply your insistence that NIST essentially says that the buckling stage is simultaneous with the free-fall stage.

NIST says nothing of the sort.

(Of course.)

Dave when responding to a post about an article you might want to actually read the entire article. The article contains two possibilities for the free fall period. The second is your position and it is clearly indicated that it is your position. If you're having trouble just search for your name. NIST did not "answer" or explain the free fall period in any way. Neither do you or Tom or Ryan. You merely pronounce it, expecting it to be taken on faith. This is faith-based reasoning not science. As usual the only straw man is _your_ straw man accusation. And as usual you sidestep the relevant inconvenient point in the article:

"An eight story section of steel bent down two feet would be barely noticeable to the naked eye. If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Again can you respond to these three questions:

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?

A theory that contains completely unsupported pronouncements is faith-based not science-based. Agree or disagree?

A theory that violates the laws of physics is a crackpot pseudo-science theory. Agree or disagree?

If you agree to all these three statements then you will have to counter the arguments made in the article or be seen as someone believing in a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory.

 

[DGM]

Dave when responding to a post about an article you might want to actually read the entire article. The article contains two possibilities for the free fall period. The second is your position and it is clearly indicated that it is your position. If you're having trouble just search for your name. NIST did not "answer" or explain the free fall period in any way. Neither do you or Tom or Ryan. You merely pronounce it, expecting it to be taken on faith. This is faith-based reasoning not science. As usual the only straw man is _your_ straw man accusation. And as usual you sidestep the relevant inconvenient point in the article:

"An eight story section of steel bent down two feet would be barely noticeable to the naked eye. If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Again can you respond to these three questions:

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?

A theory that contains completely unsupported pronouncements is faith-based not science-based. Agree or disagree?

A theory that violates the laws of physics is a crackpot pseudo-science theory. Agree or disagree?

If you agree to all these three statements then you will have to counter the arguments made in the article or be seen as someone believing in a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory.

Do you actually plan to show how the NIST description "violates the laws of physics" or are you going to continue to hope we'll except your version of what was written?

 

[Myriad]

"An eight story section of steel bent down two feet would be barely noticeable to the naked eye. If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Every sentence in that paragraph is wrong.

For instance, an eight story section (call it 100 feet) bent so that its top dropped by 2 feet would be bowed about 10 feet sideways in the middle. I think that might be more than barely visible to the naked eye.

Try it yourself with a meter stick. Place it flat and vertical against a wall, with one end at the floor, and then force the top end down 2 centimeters (representing 2 feet). Measure how far from the wall the center is now. (Centimeters translate into feet.) Also look at how obvious the bend is.

A single bowing over its entire length like that is the best case. Multiple-hinge buckles wouldn't deflect so far sideways, but the angles involved and the stresses on the column welds would be even greater. I'd expect it to break right around that point. (No, your meter stick didn't break, but it's not rigid enough to support heavy loads in the first place. Try it with a dry two-by-four, or a segmented structural steel column.)

Take one end of any structural member of any building, force it to move two feet in any direction relative to its neighbors, and most likely the entire building would be condemned. Fatal and irreparable damage.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[cmatrix]

Every sentence in that paragraph is wrong.

For instance, an eight story section (call it 100 feet) bent so that its top dropped by 2 feet would be bowed about 10 feet sideways in the middle. I think that might be more than barely visible to the naked eye.

Try it yourself with a meter stick. Place it flat and vertical against a wall, with one end at the floor, and then force the top end down 2 centimeters (representing 2 feet). Measure how far from the wall the center is now. (Centimeters translate into feet.) Also look at how obvious the bend is.

A single bowing over its entire length like that is the best case. Multiple-hinge buckles wouldn't deflect so far sideways, but the angles involved and the stresses on the column welds would be even greater. I'd expect it to break right around that point. (No, your meter stick didn't break, but it's not rigid enough to support heavy loads in the first place. Try it with a dry two-by-four, or a segmented structural steel column.)

Take one end of any structural member of any building, force it to move two feet in any direction relative to its neighbors, and most likely the entire building would be condemned. Fatal and irreparable damage.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ah so "Every sentence in that paragraph is wrong." Yet you only deal with the first sentence. Don't get me wrong you make a good point but it's a minor point in the paragraph. What you have left is this:

"If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

 

[Myriad]

Ah so "Every sentence in that paragraph is wrong." Yet you only deal with the first sentence. Don't get me wrong you make a good point but it's a minor point in the paragraph. What you have left is this:

"If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

The other sentences are wrong too.

I discussed the first sentence further because it was at least wrong in an interesting way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[carlitos]

cmatrix is interested in offering tens of thousands of dollars as a reward for explaining physics, but he can't be bothered to bend a yardstick. Quelle surprise.

 

[cmatrix]

The other sentences are wrong too.

I discussed the first sentence further because it was at least wrong in an interesting way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

LOL Typical debunkster strategy: find the weakest point in an argument, attack that and then pronounce the argument debunked. Priceless.

Again, no one here has ever _reasonably_ dealt with this:

"If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Dave Thomas, TFK and Ryan Mackey have never explained it because they can't. It's not possible to explain the crackpot official story of WTC 7 and still be aligned with science. These three know the scientific method. They understand the laws of physics. But they refuse to admit the obvious that the crackpot WTC 7 theory is completely unscientific and violates the laws of physics. These three are neither stupid nor insane. You have to ask yourself why then do they defend a thoroughly stupid and insane theory.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

LOL Typical debunker strategy: find the weakest point in an argument, attack that and then pronounce the argument debunked. Priceless.

Again, no one here has ever _reasonably_ dealt with this:

"If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Dave Thomas, TFK and Ryan Mackey have never explained it because they can't. It's not possible to explain the crackpot official story of WTC 7 and still be aligned with science. These three know the scientific method. They understand the laws of physics. But they refuse to admit the obvious that the crackpot WTC 7 theory is completely unscientific and violates the laws of physics. These three are neither stupid nor insane. You have to ask yourself why then do they defend a thoroughly stupid and insane theory.

Matrix,

Shut up & prove that the Laws of Physics was "broken".

Jesus! Going on & on about it only weakens your theory. Dodging & ignoring everyone also weakens it.

Just do us & yourself a favor: Prove it!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The other sentences are wrong too.

I discussed the first sentence further because it was at least wrong in an interesting way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

LOL Typical debunkster strategy: find the weakest point in an argument, attack that and then pronounce the argument debunked. Priceless.

cmatrix, you owe me $75.

Proof: Let x be the number of dollars you owe me.
You owe me nothing, so x*y=0 for all y.
In particular, x*(x-75)=0.
Dividing by x, we find that x-75=0.
From that we see that x, the number of dollars you owe me, is 75.
QED

You can't dispute that proof without attacking its weakest point.

By your own logic, therefore, you owe me $75.

 

[tsig]

LOL Typical debunkster strategy: find the weakest point in an argument, attack that and then pronounce the argument debunked. Priceless.
Again, no one here has ever _reasonably_ dealt with this:

"If it were possible for an eight story section of WTC 7 steel column to snap after being bent down only two feet NIST would have performed an experiment to show that this could happen instead of producing a computer model that doesn't even show free fall. Again, having all remaining columns buckle and snap simultaneously and to have all floor connections snap simultaneously all while the building has fallen only two feet requires a massive extra amount of energy that could not have been converted from the available gravitational and thermal energy. This explanation also violates the laws of physics."

Dave Thomas, TFK and Ryan Mackey have never explained it because they can't. It's not possible to explain the crackpot official story of WTC 7 and still be aligned with science. These three know the scientific method. They understand the laws of physics. But they refuse to admit the obvious that the crackpot WTC 7 theory is completely unscientific and violates the laws of physics. These three are neither stupid nor insane. You have to ask yourself why then do they defend a thoroughly stupid and insane theory.

Chain/link/weakest.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-weakest-link.html

Although in this case it's a Daisy chain.

NSFW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_chain_(sex)#Daisy_chain