Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[BigAl]

Lol. I'm arguing with people who are trying to pass off as "natural" two 110-storey top-down building collapses in under 15 seconds. I'm arguing with people who look at WTC7, can find little evidence of fires, little evidence of structural damage

Wrong. Read Pages 299-304 from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm​

 

[ergo]

OK, Horatius, let me take this one.

Ergo, there are two possibilities here.

1. You are arguing the following position:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is characteristic of controlled demolitions.
(c) This, in fact, only happens in controlled demolitions.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

If this is your position, then (a) is already demonstrated. You have not proven (b) or (c). All you've done so far is suggest that freefall collapse wouldn't be surprising in a controlled demolition, which is nowhere near proving either. So, at the moment, your reasoning has a hole in it. Horatius has suggested how you might address that hole.

If I was arguing this at all (which I'm not; you're just using me as a substitute for cmatrix), I would say that (b) is a logical assumption, (c) is probably not true in all cases as you can have portions of a building in free fall for brief moments in natural collapses, and therefore (d) while being most likely true, does not follow from (b) or (c); it is true for different reasons.

 

[ergo]

Wrong. Read Pages 299-304 from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm​

Yes, so where are the pictures? We have photos of extensive damage of every building on site and many off site. Why don't we have a similar number of photos of WTC 7's damage? I can find only one, and its authenticity is suspect.

Show me some pictures (plural) of this structural damage. While you're at it, show me the raging fires.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Yes, so where are the pictures? We have photos of extensive damage of every building on site and many off site. Why don't we have a similar number of photos of WTC 7's damage? I can find only one, and its authenticity is suspect.

Show me some pictures (plural) of this structural damage. While you're at it, show me the raging fires.

 

[ergo]

I'm sorry, does this get any better after the first minute? Cause I'm getting bored already.

 

[ergo]

Sooo, fire coming out of six windows brought the building down?

Where is the structural damage?

Where are all the photos of WTC 7?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I'm sorry, does this get any better after the first minute? Cause I'm getting bored already.

You wanted raging fires, I'm showing you raging fires.

You might try actually watching the video before judging it.

Or is 3 minutes and 47 seconds beyond your attention span?

 

[ergo]

I've posted this before, but it makes the point really well.

This is what real fires look like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ&feature=related

 

[Horatius]

If I was arguing this at all (which I'm not; you're just using me as a substitute for cmatrix), I would say that (b) is a logical assumption, (c) is probably not true in all cases as you can have portions of a building in free fall for brief moments in natural collapses, and therefore (d) while being most likely true, does not follow from (b) or (c); it is true for different reasons.

Oh, well then, excuse me for reading this post:

Most demolition videos show portions of the buildings in free fall. Not sure how this can be absolutely verified with the naked eye, and I'm sure anything anyone presents will not meet your satisfaction anyway.

and then thinking you actually were interested in a discussion of how to show these things.

What was that I said about being notoriously incurious?

 

[ergo]

You wanted raging fires, I'm showing you raging fires.

Lol!

And Newton's Bit says I'm "out of my league" here !

 

[carlitos]

It's just one big argument from incredulity. Really, I would be ashamed if I displayed such willful ignorance, but some people thrive on it.

 

[ergo]

And incredulity is inappropriate here?

If you can't produce the visual evidence that backs up your claims, then yes, incredulity will be the result. Get over it.

 

[BigAl]

Yes, so where are the pictures? We have photos of extensive damage of every building on site and many off site. Why don't we have a similar number of photos of WTC 7's damage? I can find only one, and its authenticity is suspect.

Show me some pictures (plural) of this structural damage. While you're at it, show me the raging fires.

Irrelevant to the understanding that unfought fire was the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lol. I'm arguing with people who are trying to pass off as "natural" two 110-storey top-down building collapses in under 15 seconds.

They weren't "natural"; they were caused by fire and impact damage. If the word "natural" is used, it's simply to distinguish it from a demolition by explosives.

I'm arguing with people who look at WTC7, can find little evidence of fires, little evidence of structural damage but who read the NIST report (or maybe they just watched the video?) and say "it was the fires!!" People who don't know what a demolition footprint is. People who publish "debunking" sites that use NIST arguments as "evidence". (And actually, people who don't know what evidence is). People who don't know that the height you drop something from will affect its fall time.

From the shocking ignorance of physics you've displayed, your inability to understand it when people explain it to you, and the lack of any evidence you've offered for any other explanation, I'd have to say:

If I was arguing this at all (which I'm not; you're just using me as a substitute for cmatrix), I would say that (b) is a logical assumption, (c) is probably not true in all cases as you can have portions of a building in free fall for brief moments in natural collapses, and therefore (d) while being most likely true, does not follow from (b) or (c); it is true for different reasons.

Then anything to do with freefall is irrelevant to anything you have to say, so I can only assume your sole motivation in mentioning it is simple trolling.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

And incredulity is inappropriate here?

If you can't produce the visual evidence that backs up your claims, then yes, incredulity will be the result. Get over it.

The firemen watching WTC7 burn got it right; unfought fire was the root cause of the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you can't produce the visual evidence that backs up your claims, then yes, incredulity will be the result. Get over it.

Get over yourself. We don't actually need to convince you of anything; most of the world knows you're wrong.

Dave

 

[ergo]

Irrelevant to the understanding that unfought fire was the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

So the lack of any visual evidence is, to Big Al, "irrelevant" to the "understanding". Let's remember this when it comes up in a different argument.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've posted this before, but it makes the point really well.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? It makes the point, in the title slide, that the person making the video is as shockingly ignorant of what happened on 9/11 as you are.

"Why didn't WTC5 collapse?"

Well, actually, a very large amount of its internal structure did collapse. What that tells us, of course, is that collapse of steel structures is really rather commonplace as a result of contents fires. But, of course, truthers want to pretend that's not true, so they'd rather not think about WTC5's internal collapse.

Dave

 

[Disbelief]

Lol. I'm arguing with people who are trying to pass off as "natural" two 110-storey top-down building collapses in under 15 seconds. I'm arguing with people who look at WTC7, can find little evidence of fires, little evidence of structural damage but who read the NIST report (or maybe they just watched the video?) and say "it was the fires!!" People who don't know what a demolition footprint is. People who publish "debunking" sites that use NIST arguments as "evidence". (And actually, people who don't know what evidence is). People who don't know that the height you drop something from will affect its fall time.

Don't worry, I'm not out of my league.

Well, you have proven that you do not understand physics, so you are out of your league.

I didn't know that gravity could pull things to the earth faster than gravity. What law of motion provides for this exception?

And why are you assuming that the ball is falling at 'g' when it clearly is falling slower than the stick?

 

[ergo]

Get over yourself. We don't actually need to convince you of anything; most of the world knows you're wrong.

...getting cranky there, Dave. I know it's frustrating when you want to just find a photo that will shut me up real quick and you can't.