Open Letter to Dave Thomas

TShaitanaku said:
Sorry, everytime I read this thread's name I think it's about the Wendy's Dave Thomas.
Click to expand...

Dave Thomas: Sane hamburger...

d0ce2bbaa62d44c3a3e0b66.jpg


Truthers: Not so same hamburger...

innoutburgerinnoutburge.jpg


</hamburger thread>
 
3 questions regarding the debate:

1. IIRC, TFK and yourself was close to at least the beginning of a discussion and you stopped posting. Why do you choose to debate Mr. Thomas now?

2. When Mr. Thomas wins the debate, will you be paying him the $5,000 he will be eligible to recieve?

http://vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

3. If #2 is yes, then who will be the arbitrator and will you be providing proof that the money is held in an escrow account by a completely neutral party?

TIA.
 
Last edited:
Just out of interest, given that the 2.25 seconds of near-freefall has already been explained, why does it have to be Dave Thomas specifically who repeats the explanation? Is it only true if the right person says it?

Dave
 
AJM8125 said:
...
2. When Mr. Thomas wins the debate, will you be paying him the $5,000 he will be eligible to recieve?

http://vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

3. If #2 is yes, then who will be the arbitrator and will you be providing proof that the money is held in an escrow account by a completely neutral party?

TIA.
Click to expand...

That challenge cannot possibly be met:

Applicants must explain how normal office fires caused 8 stories or about 100 feet of structure including the 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns of WTC 7 to be effectively removed simultaneously floor by floor so that the building was able to free fall straight down symmetrically for at least 2.25 seconds.
Click to expand...

The event this person wants to have explained is not the "official" theory and not what NIST described, and of course also not what happened in reality.
 
Oystein said:
That challenge cannot possibly be met:
The event this person wants to have explained is not the "official" theory and not what NIST described, and of course also not what happened in reality.
Click to expand...



Ah.....the old classic strawman.


Compus
 
That is the key to setting up a challenge you have no intention (and not likely the resources) to fund...make it unwinnable.

TAM;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Just out of interest, given that the 2.25 seconds of near-freefall has already been explained, why does it have to be Dave Thomas specifically who repeats the explanation? Is it only true if the right person says it?

Dave
Click to expand...

Apparently, and it's not only who says it, it's also where it's said.
 
Oystein said:
Everything has been said, but not yet by everyone :D
Click to expand...

I finally caught word of this via cmatrix PM.

Upon reading his challenge, and the other posts mentioned here, I see so purpose to debating WT7's brief freefall episode here.

Cmatrix, I suggest you do like Richard Gage. When he wanted all the debunkers to debate at the press club, and all refused, he just went ahead and debated our soundbites from previous encounters.

So, why not scour some old threads for my comments on WTC7, and debate those? You'll find more than a few on this 40-page-long thread. It was basically hashed to death there.

I have also posted some musings on WTC7 in general here. Feel free to debate any of these comments also.

But while you're there, check out my other articles, most having to do with the Twin Towers, here.

And now, I've scripts to code, and homework papers to grade.

Have a safe and happy debate! TTFN, Dave
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I finally caught word of this via cmatrix PM.

Upon reading his challenge, and the other posts mentioned here, I see so purpose to debating WT7's brief freefall episode here.

Cmatrix, I suggest you do like Richard Gage. When he wanted all the debunkers to debate at the press club, and all refused, he just went ahead and debated our soundbites from previous encounters.

So, why not scour some old threads for my comments on WTC7, and debate those? You'll find more than a few on this 40-page-long thread. It was basically hashed to death there.

I have also posted some musings on WTC7 in general here. Feel free to debate any of these comments also.

But while you're there, check out my other articles, most having to do with the Twin Towers, here.

And now, I've scripts to code, and homework papers to grade.

Have a safe and happy debate! TTFN, Dave
Click to expand...

Nice try Dave. We all know you have never ever attempted to deal with the WTC 7 2.25 seconds free fall period because you can't. It is simply not possible to conform with both the official crackpot 9/11 theory and the laws of physics. You know that, at least unconsciously. You see no purpose in debating not because it's irrelevant or that it's been done before but because you simply can't win. Your position is one of faith not science and most certainly not skepticism.
 
cmatrix said:
Nice try Dave. We all know you have never ever attempted to deal with the WTC 7 2.25 seconds free fall period because you can't. It is simply not possible to conform with both the official crackpot 9/11 theory and the laws of physics. You know that, at least unconsciously. You see no purpose in debating not because it's irrelevant or that it's been done before but because you simply can't win. Your position is one of faith not science and most certainly not skepticism.
Click to expand...

Not like you already had your mind made up or anything.
 
cmatrix said:
Nice try Dave. We all know you have never ever attempted to deal with the WTC 7 2.25 seconds free fall period because you can't. It is simply not possible to conform with both the official crackpot 9/11 theory and the laws of physics. You know that, at least unconsciously. You see no purpose in debating not because it's irrelevant or that it's been done before but because you simply can't win. Your position is one of faith not science and most certainly not skepticism.
Click to expand...

Hey, here is a novel idea. If you are so smart, and are so dead set on proving NIST wrong, why don't you be the FIRST TRUTHER EVER to write it up in a paper, put your math together, and submit it to any of the RESPECTABLE journals on engineering.

I reccomend:

Journal of Structural Engineering

Journal SEI - IABSE

Advances in Structural Engineering

JOM
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/jomhome.asp

Any of the ASCE journals.

We await your abstract.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Dave Thomas: Sane hamburger...

[qimg]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/3420/d0ce2bbaa62d44c3a3e0b66.jpg[/qimg]

Truthers: Not so same hamburger...

[qimg]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5707/innoutburgerinnoutburge.jpg[/qimg]

</hamburger thread>
Click to expand...

let's see, and a bucket of fries, and oh yeah, a diet coke!
 
cmatrix said:
Nice try Dave. We all know you have never ever attempted to deal with the WTC 7 2.25 seconds free fall period because you can't. It is simply not possible to conform with both the official crackpot 9/11 theory and the laws of physics. You know that, at least unconsciously. You see no purpose in debating not because it's irrelevant or that it's been done before but because you simply can't win. Your position is one of faith not science and most certainly not skepticism.
Click to expand...


Care to back this giant pile of steaming bravado up with a competent argument?



tom

PS. Why did you bolt from the "I'll bet $5,000" thread...??

Would you be willing to reinstate that wager with an unbiased, competent structural engineer as arbiter?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Care to back this giant pile of steaming bravado up with a competent argument?



tom

PS. Why did you bolt from the "I'll bet $5,000" thread...??

Would you be willing to reinstate that wager with an unbiased, competent structural engineer as arbiter?
Click to expand...

I will back up my statements (which I have put forth and defended before until they were removed) as soon as a separate moderated thread is setup for me. Which is the whole point of this thread. Your resident physicist has declined. What does that tell you?

As for the "$5000 thread" I have no idea what you are talking about. Another limp-wristed attempt to discredit and misdirect from the main points I put forth I assume. A competently moderated thread will dispense with this typical JREF stupidity as well.
 
cmatrix said:
Nice try Dave. We all know you have never ever attempted to deal with the WTC 7 2.25 seconds free fall period because you can't. It is simply not possible to conform with both the official crackpot 9/11 theory and the laws of physics. You know that, at least unconsciously. You see no purpose in debating not because it's irrelevant or that it's been done before but because you simply can't win. Your position is one of faith not science and most certainly not skepticism.
Click to expand...


This was part of a discussion that was held on that long thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6284873&postcount=917 hyperlink

http://info-wars.org/2010/08/26/coast-to-coast-am-911-debate-with-richard-gage-and-dave-thomas/ audio 11 parts

The explanation by Dave for how the 2.25 second thing worked is from about the 5:00 minutes mark in this attached clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V93lg0P35QE 6of11
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom