Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

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:


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.

Good points Dave. So, suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

 

[carlitos]

Well, except for the fact that the building was damaged, caught fire and fell down. Except for that, sure.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Good points Dave. ... Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?
...

Could you do me a favor, and stop putting words in my mouth?

NIST explained the free fall period.

Therefore, I don't agree that "the NIST theory cannot explain the free fall period."

I'll say it again.

Your strawman model has WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage.

That is indeed a "wacky theory", and bad physics.

NIST does not adhere to your straw "theory." NIST has buckling in stage 1, and freefall in stage 2. May I remind you of this verifiable fact from mathematics:

1 is not equal to 2

I do not adhere to your straw "theory."

The only one around here espousing this obviously incorrect physics explanation is YOU, CMATRIX.

The fact that you believe in an absurd, physically impossible "theory" does not prove NIST does, it does not prove that I do, it only exposes you as a pathetic purveyor of polemic pablum.

It does not prove 9/11 was in inside job, WTC7 was imploded, or anything else.

[cynicism]Sorry[/cynicism].

 

[twinstead]

1 is not equal to 2. Woa.

I love this forum; I'm always learning something.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

1 is not equal to 2. Woa.

I love this forum; I'm always learning something.

For grins, here's a proof that 1 DOES equal 2.

• Let a = b.
• Multiply both sides of the equation by a:
• a*a = a² = ab.
• Now subtract b² from both sides:
• a²-b² = ab - b².
• Now factor as follows:
• (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b).
• Now you can factor out the common term, (a-b):
• (a-b)(a+b) = b(a-b).
• a+b = b.
• Recall that a=b:
• a+a = a.
• Combine terms:
• 2a = a.
• Divide out the common factor, a:
• 2 = 1.

Now you've learned something!

 

[Newtons Bit]

For grins, here's a proof that 1 DOES equal 2.


Now you've learned something!

Hey now, no dividing by zero!

 

[triforcharity]

13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.

Sorry, Tri, but you are wrong!

13x7 = 28.

 

[triforcharity]

Oops!!

 

[Horatius]

"Did you go to school stupid?" A much more appropriate quote, methinks.



Oh, and 6x7=42

 

[grandmastershek]

 

[dafydd]

13x7=21.

I still believe this to this day. Abbot and Costello told me so.

They would make wonderful figureheads for the Truther movement,or maybe the Three Stooges.

 

[cmatrix]

Could you do me a favor, and stop putting words in my mouth?

NIST explained the free fall period.

Therefore, I don't agree that "the NIST theory cannot explain the free fall period."

I'll say it again.

Your strawman model has WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage.

That is indeed a "wacky theory", and bad physics.

NIST does not adhere to your straw "theory." NIST has buckling in stage 1, and freefall in stage 2. May I remind you of this verifiable fact from mathematics:


I do not adhere to your straw "theory."

The only one around here espousing this obviously incorrect physics explanation is YOU, CMATRIX.

The fact that you believe in an absurd, physically impossible "theory" does not prove NIST does, it does not prove that I do, it only exposes you as a pathetic purveyor of polemic pablum.

It does not prove 9/11 was in inside job, WTC7 was imploded, or anything else.

[cynicism]Sorry[/cynicism].

No NIST has never ever explained the free fall period. At first they claimed the falling building broke up the structure below. They claimed free fall was impossible. Then when confronted with the fact of free fall they merely stated that it occured but provide no explanation whatsoever of why or how it happened. They claim buckling occured in the stage before free fall but don't claim this buckling caused the free fall period or how it could cause free fall. All have have to support your theory that buckling caused the free fall period are unsupported claims. Are you trying to say making unsupported claims is good science?

In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage. This "fact" is something you have fabricated out of thin air and then attack as if it is an argument of mine. IOW you are attacking a straw man by falsely claiming I am using a straw man argument. Again, it is you committing the straw man logical fallacy. This is what, the third time I have exposed this incredibly bizarre reasoning process of yours.

Instead of pathetically attempting to misdirect attention can you just deal with my arguments from the last post like a mature adult. Again:

...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

 

[A W Smith]

They claimed free fall was impossible.

they did? When?

 

[alienentity]

No NIST has never ever explained the free fall period. At first they claimed the falling building broke up the structure below. They claimed free fall was impossible. Then when confronted with the fact of free fall they merely stated that it occured but provide no explanation whatsoever of why or how it happened. They claim buckling occured in the stage before free fall but don't claim this buckling caused the free fall period or how it could cause free fall.

cmatrix, here's the problem:

1) The NIST did in fact explain the free fall period, but you refuse to accept the explanation. So it would be correct to say 'I don't agree with their view' instead of 'they didn't explain it'. You're just wrong about that.

2) They did not claim freefall was impossible. That is false. Please correct your error.

3) Wrong again. They did explain, in detail, how the initial stage represented buckling, and how the second stage was the resulting freefall.

This is outlined in NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse and p 602, chapter 12.5.3 Timing of Collapse Initiation and Progression:
'In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.'

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s. '

cmatrix, the problem with your claims is that they are fairly easy to disprove by referring to the NIST documents directly. Perhaps you feel you can misrepresent the NIST, but this isn't the place to do it - people here aren't so gullible as to take the word of an anonymous forum poster....

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

No NIST has never ever explained the free fall period. At first they claimed the falling building broke up the structure below. They claimed free fall was impossible. Then when confronted with the fact of free fall they merely stated that it occured but provide no explanation whatsoever of why or how it happened. They claim buckling occured in the stage before free fall but don't claim this buckling caused the free fall period or how it could cause free fall. All have have to support your theory that buckling caused the free fall period are unsupported claims. Are you trying to say making unsupported claims is good science?

In my previous post I did not say the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage. This "fact" is something you have fabricated out of thin air and then attack as if it is an argument of mine. IOW you are attacking a straw man by falsely claiming I am using a straw man argument. Again, it is you committing the straw man logical fallacy. This is what, the third time I have exposed this incredibly bizarre reasoning process of yours.

Instead of pathetically attempting to misdirect attention can you just deal with my arguments from the last post like a mature adult. Again:

...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

OK, so you didn't mention "the NIST model had WTC7 breaking and buckling 58 perimeter columns during the freefall stage" in the previous post...

But, you've mentioned it many, many times, here, in this very thread...

Where did the gravity come from? Magical gravity fairies? When an object (WTC 7) is in free fall all the availability gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. There is no GPE available to buckle all 58 perimeter columns at exactly the same time. See, the non-crackpot world conforms to the laws of physics.

No because I am not a crackpot. Again you go back to C7's point that you apparently believe WTC 7 was magically suspended in the air, the 58 columns buckle simultaneously at one floor and buckle again simultaneously 8 floors up and then the building falls.

No one here has ever ever dealt with the WTC7 2.25 second free fall, period. ...
Now let's analyze the monumentally absurd WTC 7 buckling theory. For the 2.25 second free fall period you need to completely get rid of eight stories of structure. There appears to be only two possibilities. All 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time or all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously floor by floor. The columns could not buckle simultaneously floor by floor and still result in free fall. When the first floor buckled building would be crashing down and meet resistance with resulting slow down. In this scenario there could be no free fall. So you are left with all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously on all eight floors at the same time, the accordion theory. The odds of this happening are so astronomical that they could never be computed.

Oh did someone explain how eight stories of structure were completely removed by all 58 perimeter columns buckling simultaneously at the same locations? I must have missed it.

All 58 perimeter columns had to be cut precisely so that the building would fall straight down. Some of the columns in the middle could be cut a fraction of a second from the others but the rest had to be cut so close together that the time difference couldn't even be measured. It is impossible for fire to be so meticulously precise. A "chain of causality" requires gravitational potential energy which you don't have in free fall. Your theory is extraordinarily ridiculous and therefore requires extraordinary proof. A true skeptic would know that. You have absolutely no proof to support your theory whatsoever. All you have is faith. Faith-based theories are crackpot pseudo-science. This is something you all need to come to terms with.

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

I could go on, but what's the point? You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data...

Good luck on trying to trick me into that "killer confession" you're hoping for! How's that working out for ya?

 

[cmatrix]

I could go on, but what's the point? You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data...

Good luck on trying to trick me into that "killer confession" you're hoping for! How's that working out for ya?

LOL. You completely misunderstand my intentions Dave. I am not attempting to extract a "killer confession" from you. I am merely here to show that you continually ignore inconvenient scientific facts and make wild completely unsupported pronouncements. For example, you make the follwing bold claim: "You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." yet provide absolutely no support for it. This is prime evidence of your thoroughly unscientific faith-based approach to 9/11. You sidestep and refuse to acknowlege arguments that completely obliterate your case like the following:

...suppose someone came up with a theory that attempted to explain a phenomena involving objects travelling at very high velocities. Suppose this theory only referred to Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravity that could not explain the phenomena the theory is supposed to explain. This theory then would not be a scientific theory. If someone else came up with an alternative theory using Relativity to explain all the observables, this theory should prevail and the former should be rejected. Then you agree that the NIST theory that cannot explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south should be rejected in favor of an alternative theory that could explain all the observables?

Let's go back to your definition:

"A "Scientific Theory" is a well-validated body of knowledge, replete with proven hypotheses, confirming data, predictive and explanatory capabilities, and more."

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mine's bolded:

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone.

Correct! And with the evidence provided they came to the conclussion that it was fire.

This has never happened before in the history of the world.

Wrong! Just because Rosie O'Donnell said it doesn't mean you can take it literally. Hello, she's an actress, remember?

There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses.
There is absolutely no confirming data.
The theory has absolutely no predictive powers.
Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

But you have no evidence for your claims or theories. Keep on babbling like Stundie!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

LOL. You completely misunderstand my intentions Dave. I am not attempting to extract a "killer confession" from you. I am merely here to show that you continually ignore inconvenient scientific facts and make wild completely unsupported pronouncements. For example, you make the follwing bold claim: "You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." yet provide absolutely no support for it. This is prime evidence of your thoroughly unscientific faith-based approach to 9/11. ...

I don't think my claim that"You haven't even understood my explanation of how a theory can indeed be scientific, without explaining all observed data." is "bold" at all.

For the curious, I made the claim here.

See for yourself!

Dave

 

[DGM]

The NIST WTC 7 theory attempts to explain the rapid and complete collapse of a large steel-framed skyscraper by fire alone. This has never happened before in the history of the world. So there is no well-validated body of knowledge at all. There is absolutely no proof at all of their hypotheses. There is absolutely no confirming data. The theory has absolutely no predictive powers. Because the theory does not explain the free fall period, the roofline kink and the final roll to the south, the theory has extremely poor explanatory capabilities, and more. By your own definition, the NIST theory is not scientific in any way shape or form. The NIST theory is in fact a mere guess or unsupported conjecture, the casual form of "theory".

This is where (one of the many places) your wrong. There is a "well validated body of knowledge". Buckling is very well understood in structural engineering.