• 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

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.
Click to expand...
cmatrix, do you know what the E in FEA stands for?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's cruel!

That went so far over his head that he's most likely checking his post and emails to make sure he didn't actually make a bet.

I fully expect him to come back stating he didn't.



:o
 
CM,

cmatrix said:
Dave Thomas, TFK and Ryan Mackey have never explained it because they can't.
Click to expand...

Every time I show up to discuss something with you, you take a powder.

cmatrix said:
It's not possible to explain the crackpot official story of WTC 7 and still be aligned with science.
Click to expand...

It ain't science. It's engineering.

And there ain't no "violation of engineering".

cmatrix said:
These three know the scientific method.
Click to expand...

But apparently you do not.

Nobody intends to build another WTC7, and then start fires in it, to see if we can replicate the collapse.

Forensic engineering analysis is not "the scientific method".

cmatrix said:
They understand the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics ain't at issue.
The rules of engineering are.
And you don't appear to know them from Adam.

cmatrix said:
But they refuse to admit the obvious that the crackpot WTC 7 theory is completely unscientific and violates the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the others, but I don't "admit" it because it ain't true.

cmatrix said:
These three are neither stupid nor insane.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And true.

cmatrix said:
You have to ask yourself why then do they defend a thoroughly stupid and insane theory.
Click to expand...

We don't defend a "thoroughly stupid & insane theory". We defend a competent engineering report done by a couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise.

As opposed to your uninformed rubbish.

There is "something stupid" around here. It ain't the NIST report.

As for "insane"... That's not my jurisdiction.


tk
 
Last edited:
And the way I see it, Fullerton owes either you, Dave Thomas, Dave Rogers or Ryan Mackey $5,000 Canadian plus an additional $75 to W.D. Clinger.

Mr. Fullerton, will that be pay-pal or would you prefer to settle up by other means?
 
Myriad said:
The other sentences are wrong too.

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


cmatrix said:
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."
Click to expand...


Hmm, ok, so every sentence being wrong is only the "weakest point" in your argument. Fair enough. Pray tell, what are the strong points?

However, on further consideration, I will modify my characterization of the remaining three sentences, from "wrong" to "not even wrong." There is no meaningful argument in any of them, which admittedly does make it difficult to refute in detail, but also makes them utterly irrelevant and unusable to support any argument.

"If it were possible... then NIST would have..." makes a claim of a causal connection for which no actual causality is shown or implied. An argument of identical structure and equal validity would be, "If I were not the Pope, then Kate Middleton would have juggled four zucchini on the Conan O'Brien Show, therefore I am the Pope."

"... Requires a massive amount of extra energy that could not have been converted..." is structured as a quantitative claim, that one specific quantity is greater than another. But neither quantity is stated, so the claim has no substance whatsoever. "No one but the Pope can have as high a sanctity rating as I do, therefore I am the Pope."

"This explanation also violates the laws of physics." But you can't be bothered to state how, or even which laws. Probably because of the aforementioned lack of quantity in the quantitative claim immediately previous. So again, no substance. "My not being the Pope would violate the laws of Catholic doctrine, therefore I am the Pope."

These three not-even-wrong arguments, lacking any actual substance of their own, are merely repetitions of the original claim, masquerading as support for them. It's no different than if you had written, "I am right because (1) I am not wrong, (2) the numbers show I cannot possibly be wrong, and (3) my being wrong would contradict item (1)."

None of which makes it any less wrong.

ETA: I apologize for the boring post. That's what I meant by not "wrong in an interesting way."

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
CM,



Every time I show up to discuss something with you, you take a powder.



It ain't science. It's engineering.

And there ain't no "violation of engineering".



But apparently you do not.

Nobody intends to build another WTC7, and then start fires in it, to see if we can replicate the collapse.

Forensic engineering analysis is not "the scientific method".



The laws of physics ain't at issue.
The rules of engineering are.
And you don't appear to know them from Adam.



I can't speak for the others, but I don't "admit" it because it ain't true.



Thank you. And true.



We don't defend a "thoroughly stupid & insane theory". We defend a competent engineering report done by a couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise.

As opposed to your uninformed rubbish.

There is "something stupid" around here. It ain't the NIST report.

As for "insane"... That's not my jurisdiction.


tk
Click to expand...

Engineering isn't science? Engineering is "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property." according to The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development. IOW it's an art that uses science. It's not an art that rejects or ignores science as you and NIST do.

If the crackpot NIST report is an engineering report it should contain sound science. It and you, if you are an engineer, therefore should not put forth and defend crackpot faith-based pseudo-science theories that violate the laws of physics.

You don't need to duplicate the actual WTC 7 collapse to support the crackpot NIST theory. You could develop a small scale model or an accurate software simulation. NIST didn't because they know they can never in any way replicate the actual WTC 7 collapse.

Since you believe that the WTC 7 theory is scientific and does not violate the laws of physics why don't you explain how the free fall period occured for us? While you are at it explain how a couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise could create a competent engineering report and yet sidestep the most important fact of the WTC 7 collapse, the free fall period.
 
cmatrix said:
Since you're so hesitant to talk science with me here Dave let me make it easy for you. Can you respond to this one measly question:

A theory that does not explain all the observables is not a scientific theory. Agree or disagree?
Click to expand...
He's not resistant to talk science. He just doesn't want to talk to someone that has none (you).

Plan to show how NIST "violated the laws of physics" ?
 
cmatrix said:
....defend crackpot faith-based pseudo-science theories that violate the laws of physics.

Since you believe that the WTC 7 theory is scientific and does not violate the laws of physics why don't you explain how the free fall period occured for us?
Click to expand...

Can any Truther explain how the Laws of Physics was in anyway "violated" on 9/11?

2.25 seconds is only a FRACTION of free fall.

The only violation I see is a complete misunderstanding of Newton's 3 laws by idiots within the TM.
 
Newton's 3 Laws:

•Newton's First Law of Motion states that in order for the motion of an object to change, a force must act upon it, a concept generally called inertia.

•Newton's Second Law of Motion defines the relationship between acceleration, force, and mass.

•Newton's Third Law of Motion states that any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object.
Click to expand...

And of course, the Law of Gravity:

Newton's law of gravity defines the attractive force between all objects that possess mass. Understanding the law of gravity, one of the fundamental forces of physics, offers profound insights into the way our universe functions.

Gravitational Forces
Newton eventually came to the conclusion that, in fact, the apple and the moon were influenced by the same force. He named that force gravitation (or gravity) after the Latin word gravitas which literally translates into "heaviness" or "weight."
In the Principia, Newton defined the force of gravity in the following way (translated from the Latin):

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Mathematically, this translates into the force equation shown to the right. In this equation, the quantities are defined as:
•Fg = The force of gravity (typically in newtons)

•G = The gravitational constant, which adds the proper level of proportionality to the equation. The value of G is 6.67259 x 10-11 N * m2 / kg2, although the value will change if other units are being used.

•m1 & m1 = The masses of the two particles (typically in kilograms)

•r = The straight-line distance between the two particles (typically in meters)
Click to expand...

Somehow I think Truthers completely misunderstood everything.

Laws of Physics was "violated", yeah right! :rolleyes:
 
cmatrix said:
Since you're so hesitant to talk science with me here Dave let me make it easy for you. Can you respond to this one measly question:

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

I'm unable to answer the question you're asking because it's ill-posed. It's a loaded question, and is also full of ambiguous terminology.

In the unlikely event that you're actually asking me to define what I think the term "Scientific Theory" means, here goes:
A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more. A "Theory" in science is not to be confused with the casual form of "theory", as a mere guess or unsupported conjecture.
Click to expand...

Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity are an example of a Scientific Theory. This doesn't explain all observables, however, such as behavior of objects at very high velocities.

The Special Theory of Relativity is an example of a Scientific Theory. This too doesn't explain all observables, however, such as behavior of objects near very large masses.

So, Scientific Theories are well-developed, validated bodies of knowledge. As new theories are developed, older theories are incorporated into the newer theories, or discarded.

Not all Scientific Theories explain All the Observables.
 
cmatrix said:
Engineering isn't science? ...
Click to expand...
JREF debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. What is dumb, you are JREF.

You don't have to worry, the work you posted so far is not engineering, or science. 911 truth does not use science, and they don't do engineering. You might say 911 truth has no engineering skills because they can't do science. Chicken, or the egg? Was it the engineer who invented science? Or the scientist who invented engineering? BOTH, oops.

You are JREF, and you should be pointing out 911 truth does not use science. Why is 911 truth unable to grasp 911, and why did you fail to pay out the prize. Did you lie about the contest?
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
Engineering isn't science? Engineering is "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property." according to The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development. IOW it's an art that uses science. It's not an art that rejects or ignores science as you and NIST do.
Click to expand...
Go and tell an engineer that engineering is "just science" and watch what he does. Feel free. (I do hope that you have a good dental plan though).

If the crackpot NIST report is an engineering report it should contain sound science. It and you, if you are an engineer, therefore should not put forth and defend crackpot faith-based pseudo-science theories that violate the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

It does contain "sound" engineering. Which is why not a single truther has managed to publish any peer reviewed engineering which shows any errors * in the nist report

(*there may be some small errors in parts because it was a very chaotic event, and it is impossible to accurately describe ALL of the collapse. None of the little niggling issues detract from or show that the NIST reports are invalid)

You don't need to duplicate the actual WTC 7 collapse to support the crackpot NIST theory. You could develop a small scale model or an accurate software simulation. NIST didn't because they know they can never in any way replicate the actual WTC 7 collapse.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO.

Do you even know what it takes to "develop a small scale model" which would even come close to representing wtc7?

Please tell me how you can scale gravity. I (and the engineering world at large) would LOVE to hear you tell us that one. While we are on it, your lack of understanding what is involved in SCALING shows your complete ignorance.

As for the "accurate software simulation" you are asking for an impossible level of proof. How many moving parts were there in the wtc7 collapse? Millions. If not hundreds of millions. Can you tell me ANY "accurate software simulation" which with millions/hundreds of millions of moving parts can "accurate"ly tell us where most of the stuff will be? Feel free to show us any. You would just shift shift shift them goalposts to "look the simulation doesn't MATCH the actual collapse" which they wouldn't.

Since you believe that the WTC 7 theory is scientific and does not violate the laws of physics why don't you explain how the free fall period occured for us?
Click to expand...
Already been done. Look up the NIST report. Now if you can find ANY peer reviewed engineering, physics or other academic papers that are published in ANY valid engineering/physics journals, I'd love to see them.

Your argument from ignorance it duly noted. And rejected.

While you are at it explain how a couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise could create a competent engineering report and yet sidestep the most important fact of the WTC 7 collapse, the free fall period.
Click to expand...

Because the free fall period isn't the "most important fact of the wtc7 collapse." The most important fact is the HOW and WHY wtc7 collapsed. YOu seem to have missed that in your massive argument from incredulity and ignorance.

Oh and it isn't just a "couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise." It would be the vast majority (over 99%) of all the structural or civil engineers in the WORLD. Because if "couple hundred respected, competent, successful, recognized engineers working within their field of expertise" missed anything even remotely important, there would be dozens of (if not hundreds) peer reviewed engineering journals articles ALL OVER THE WORLD. Please provide just one. In any language. I"ll wait for 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