Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Sunstealer]

Apparently WTC steel had some magical properties. These two images show WTC columns twisted right over without breaking.

You're an idiot. The photograph you posted shows a clear "break".

Unfortunately you have no understanding of materials or how they behave and expect to see childish cartoon images of "breaks" rather than real world plastic deformation, stress rupture and fracture, etc.

Cmatrix - Do you understand what the word "ductility" means? Show proof of your understanding by describing what occurs in the stress strain curve. Thank you. Here's a little help to get you started.

Here, I'll point out the 2 surfaces that show the "break" fracture and where the material has peeled away inbetween at the corner of the box girder in the higher stressed region as expected. We can also see a slight burst of the section above the arrow to the right with clear deformatiom of the box side face.

Once again a truther is proven wrong by the very image they use in their argument! Do these people actually look at what they post? Dumbasses.

Learn about metals and their processing before you spout arguments from ignorance about how metals behave under stress. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Mr. Thomas, despite having absolutely no evidence to support it, you believe in a theory in which all the considerable remaining resisting structure of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories before the building entered free fall for 2.25 seconds.

In the .6 seconds prior to all four corners free falling straight down, all four corners of WTC 7 descended a whole of 2 feet from its original height. Are you not aware that buckled columns always have minimal resistance? That is, the resistance is never 0 and therefore a building whose columns all buckled simultaneously could never be in free fall?

Now if by some miracle the columns all simultaneously fractured in the middle and by some miracle also somehow managed to simultaneously sever all connections to the floors there could be free fall. How though can you claim that all columns would fracture by buckling down only two feet? What evidence do you have that these two miracles even actually happened?

Isn't science supposed to support the simplest explanation that explains all the facts as opposed to a highly complex explanation that explains none? Isn't science supposed to support an explanation with precedence as opposed to none whatsoever? Doesn't science require evidence not none at all?

Would you care to comment on these facts that point to the theory you unquestioningly believe in to be crackpot faith-based pseudo-science?

This has been a long thread. Waaaay back on page 7, tfk posted this:

Here's a purely gravity driven collapse that experiences a period of acceleration GREATER than free fall.

Along with this YouTube:


Combine that simple but powerful demonstration with the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a long process lasting over 15 seconds, as shown here:


The conclusion? There are any number of ways in which part of a gravitational collapse can occur at freefall acceleration, with no need to invoke explosives or thermite. Whether the lower columns were in the process of buckling, or had buckled already, or were pulling on the upper ("freefall for 2.5 seconds") section, there is nothing regarding the ~2-second interval of freefall that is uniquely "controlled demolition", and not simply a gravitational collapse of a complex structure.

Sorry, CM, but this debate is over. All you've done for dozens of pages amounts to claiming that the short period of freefall proves controlled demolition. This has been demonstrated false numerous times, yet you persist with your fantasy claims, and you persist with your straw man "theory",

a theory in which all the considerable remaining resisting structure of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories before the building entered free fall for 2.25 seconds.

Perhaps you should consider taking on the real explanation, as opposed to your diversionary straw model?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

You're an idiot. The photograph you posted shows a clear "break".

Unfortunately you have no understanding of materials or how they behave and expect to see childish cartoon images of "breaks" rather than real world plastic deformation, stress rupture and fracture, etc.

Cmatrix - Do you understand what the word "ductility" means? Show proof of your understanding by describing what occurs in the stress strain curve. Thank you. Here's a little help to get you started.

Here, I'll point out the 2 surfaces that show the "break" fracture and where the material has peeled away inbetween at the corner of the box girder in the higher stressed region as expected. We can also see a slight burst of the section above the arrow to the right with clear deformatiom of the box side face.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4047[/qimg]

Once again a truther is proven wrong by the very image they use in their argument! Do these people actually look at what they post? Dumbasses.

Learn about metals and their processing before you spout arguments from ignorance about how metals behave under stress. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

Sunstealer do you know what lunacy is? Lunacy is the crackpot faith-based theory you believe in without question. Remember, according to the crackpot NIST theory that you support, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories and fractured simultaneously all in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.

 

[cmatrix]

This has been a long thread. Waaaay back on page 7, tfk posted this:


Along with this YouTube:


Combine that simple but powerful demonstration with the fact that the collapse of WTC 7 was a long process lasting over 15 seconds, as shown here:


The conclusion? There are any number of ways in which part of a gravitational collapse can occur at freefall acceleration, with no need to invoke explosives or thermite. Whether the lower columns were in the process of buckling, or had buckled already, or were pulling on the upper ("freefall for 2.5 seconds") section, there is nothing regarding the ~2-second interval of freefall that is uniquely "controlled demolition", and not simply a gravitational collapse of a complex structure.

Sorry, CM, but this debate is over. All you've done for dozens of pages amounts to claiming that the short period of freefall proves controlled demolition. This has been demonstrated false numerous times, yet you persist with your fantasy claims, and you persist with your straw man "theory",


Perhaps you should consider taking on the real explanation, as opposed to your diversionary straw model?

Dave

Dave you have no idea what I wrote because you obviously haven't even read it. It's almost like trying to communicate with a child banging a pot on his head screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over. None of the posts or videos you presented have anything to do with the important points I made. They are simply a diversion. I am not now presenting the case for CD. I am simply showing how mind-bogglingly insane is the theory that you believe in.

Your job is to prove how the 8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 could have been completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet. This extremely significant problem is not a straw man. It is a direct consequence of the crackpot theory you believe in without question. If it wasn't, you would be able to specifically point out the errors in arriving at this conclusion. You can't do this because it is in fact correct. You also can't in any way explain how the buckling miracle happened in .6 seconds. So you just pronounce that "this debate is over".

Refusing to support your theory is not science, it's pseudo-science. Believing in a theory without question despite having no evidence, no replication and no precedence is not skepticism, it's abject gullibility.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

CMatrix, give it up, you lost & lost big time. Nothing in your power can change our minds, even if you had evidence to support your story we would gladly look at them. But alas, you've posted contridictory pictures, which doesn't support your claims.

 

[excaza]

If it wasn't, you would be able to specifically point out the errors in arriving at this conclusion.

I'm not sure how repeatedly pointing out that this:

8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 could have been completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet.

didn't happen, along with reasons why it didn't happen, isn't sufficiently pointing out the errors in the scenario you've completely invented. It's almost like trying to communicate with a child banging a pot on his head screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over.

None of the posts or videos you presented have anything to do with the important points I made.

Because your "important" posts are fantasy. You have, for whatever reason, completely latched onto your straw man scenario. The reason nobody's trying to prove your scenario wrong is because it didn't happen, and you are the only one claiming it did.

 

[excaza]

Regardless of the break

Wait, I thought you said it didn't break? You claimed this steel had "magic properties." Can you please explain why this steel is out of the ordinary? Be specific.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

No they don't.

1) It's not possible to determine whether or not the ruptured web happened before or after the rotation of the "intact" section further back.
2) The web of the "intact" section is still buckled. That's a local failure mode. It happens prior or during compression buckling. Once the web goes, the thing is just a four plates, not one built up section.

Go get an education. You can't just "wing-it" with this stuff.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Because your "important" posts are fantasy. You have, for whatever reason, completely latched onto your straw man scenario. The reason nobody's trying to prove your scenario wrong is because it means Queen Dick, and you are the only one claiming it did.

The 19th Century slang word: Queen Dick; it's meaning is "never, it never happened"

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...
Your job is to prove how the 8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 could have been completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet. This extremely significant problem is not a straw man. ...

There, I've highlighted your straw man argument for you. Not a straw man, you say? OK, show me where the NIST report claims that there was "8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

I'm not asking for your interpretations of the consequences of NIST's statements, I am asking for the specific claims highlighted above, stated that way, in the original NIST report(s).

 

[triforcharity]

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

Sunstealer do you know what lunacy is? Lunacy is the crackpot faith-based theory you believe in without question. Remember, according to the crackpot NIST theory that you support, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories and fractured simultaneously all in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.

Why do you continue with this lie? The NORTH FACE!!!

 

[Edx]

Apparently WTC steel had some magical properties. These two images show WTC columns twisted right over without breaking.

[qimg]http://www.american-buddha.com/ae911truth.14c.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ieVH8a7B1Ce18M:http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/horseshoe_steel.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

So does everyone admit the NIST WTC 7 theory is complete crackpot pseudo-science bunk? Mr. Thomas don't you worry that believing without question in an easily disproven crackpot pseudo-science theory will damage your reputation?

Are you seriously saying that thermite did that????

We have twisted and bent steel in fires, thats what it looks like.

Was your magical thermite used here as well?

Or maybe here?

Here is a buckled steel column from WTC5: Did thermite do that?

 

[A W Smith]

Apparently WTC steel had some magical properties. These two images show WTC columns twisted right over without breaking.

http://www.american-buddha.com/ae911truth.14c.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...uu347/911conspiracytv/horseshoe_steel.jpg&t=1

So does everyone admit the NIST WTC 7 theory is complete crackpot pseudo-science bunk? Mr. Thomas don't you worry that believing without question in an easily disproven crackpot pseudo-science theory will damage your reputation?

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

Sunstealer do you know what lunacy is? Lunacy is the crackpot faith-based theory you believe in without question. Remember, according to the crackpot NIST theory that you support, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories and fractured simultaneously all in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.

You do know that those are core columns from the twin towers and not building seven i hope. Why are you comparing these columns to those in a building less than half its height? and constructed differently to begin with?

 

[beachnut]

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

Sunstealer do you know what lunacy is? Lunacy is the crackpot faith-based theory you believe in without question. Remember, according to the crackpot NIST theory that you support, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories and fractured simultaneously all in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.

u b d-bunked by u-tube

u b d-bunked over 100 years ago

What do you think you got right about 911? Think again, no matter what you say you got right, you are wrong.

I don't need NIST, I figured out WTC7 fell due to fire on 911. You have no clue with over 9 years. I have a masters in engineering, not needed to understand and clearly see you have nothing, no evidence to support your claims, your failed claims.

 

[twinstead]

Truthers, It just goes to show that in the scatter gun debate technique you use, sometimes rapid fire presentation of "evidence" can back fire. Jesus, you at least need to have a point when you just throw stuff out there just to throw stuff out there, otherwise you just look like idiots, folks.

Cmatrix, the images you tossed out there suggesting that the steel appeared like that magically not only are not evidence of thermite, but can be duplicated with images from just about every other large fire in a building that contains steel beams. Steel DEFORMS when it is heated.

 

[cmatrix]

There, I've highlighted your straw man argument for you. Not a straw man, you say? OK, show me where the NIST report claims that there was "8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

I'm not asking for your interpretations of the consequences of NIST's statements, I am asking for the specific claims highlighted above, stated that way, in the original NIST report(s).

Oh so if NIST doesn't explain a problem you can just ignore it because it doesn't exist? If a scientist supports a theory he has to explain any problems with it. If the theory can't explain serious problems, the theory is complete bunk. There are extremely serious problems with NIST's theory. NIST says WTC 7 had 2.25 s of free fall. They also say the lower columns buckled causing the building to come down. That means buckling removed completely eight stories of structure. The buckling had to be simultaneous over all columns because all four corners came down at the same rate. Since buckled columns all have some resistance not none at all, the columns all had to simultaneously snap. Plus, this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet. You have a different explanation? Are these facts wrong? Then let's hear it. Your hand-waving pronouncements just don't cut it. The fact is that this is the only rational explanation for what could have happened according to this crackpot theory. The only other explanations are laughably irrational. This is why you don't present them, provided you even had one of course.

Exposing the logical implications of a crackpot theory is not building a straw man. I am showing everyone what it is you actually believe in. If I was wrong you could easily point out why I was wrong. On the other hand, claiming someone has committed the straw man fallacy when they haven't _is_ actually committing the straw man fallacy. You have fabricated a position that I don't hold (that I misrepresented your theory) and attack that misrepresentation as a logical fallacy. I can effortlessly analyze your logic problems because they actually exist but you can't do the same for me because there are no logical problems in my argument.

A theory that cannot explain key observations is not a scientific theory, it is pseudo-science. A scientist that believes a theory but refuses to acknowledge problems with it, is practicing pseudo-science. The NIST theory that you support without question is pseudo-science bunk because it does not explain the free fall period. The fact that you believe in pseudo-science theories without question raises serious doubts that you are the skeptic you purport to be. The fact that you disregard scientific evidence that completely refutes your faith-based pseudo-science theory raises serious doubts as to your allegiance to good science.

 

[cmatrix]

Are you seriously saying that thermite did that????

We have twisted and bent steel in fires, thats what it looks like.

Was your magical thermite used here as well?

[qimg]http://www.oregontruss.com/uploads/images/twisted_steel%281%29.jpg[/qimg]

Or maybe here?

[qimg]http://blogs.sj-r.com/behindthecurtain/wp-content/uploads/c-98-298.jpg[/qimg]

Here is a buckled steel column from WTC5: Did thermite do that?

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for further illustrating my point that it is extremely hard if not impossible to snap a column after buckling down only two feet. All these pictures show columns severely bent but not broken.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A theory that cannot explain key observations is not a scientific theory, it is pseudo-science. A scientist that believes a theory but refuses to acknowledge problems with it, is practicing pseudo-science. <snip>

The fact that you believe in pseudo-science theories without question raises serious doubts that you are the skeptic you purport to be.

The fact that you disregard scientific evidence that completely refutes your faith-based pseudo-science theory raises serious doubts as to your allegiance to good science.

 

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud cmatrix. Don't EVEN lecture us about what you do but imply we're the ones doing it. You have NO evidence at all to support thermite or ANY CD, yet cling to it like some cult member.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Oh so if NIST doesn't explain a problem you can just ignore it because it doesn't exist? If a scientist supports a theory he has to explain any problems with it. If the theory can't explain serious problems, the theory is complete bunk. There are extremely serious problems with NIST's theory. NIST says WTC 7 had 2.25 s of free fall. They also say the lower columns buckled causing the building to come down. That means buckling removed completely eight stories of structure. The buckling had to be simultaneous over all columns because all four corners came down at the same rate. Since buckled columns all have some resistance not none at all, the columns all had to simultaneously snap. Plus, this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet. You have a different explanation? Are these facts wrong? Then let's hear it. Your hand-waving pronouncements just don't cut it. The fact is that this is the only rational explanation for what could have happened according to this crackpot theory. The only other explanations are laughably irrational. This is why you don't present them, provided you even had one of course.

Exposing the logical implications of a crackpot theory is not building a straw man. I am showing everyone what it is you actually believe in. If I was wrong you could easily point out why I was wrong. On the other hand, claiming someone has committed the straw man fallacy when they haven't _is_ actually committing the straw man fallacy. You have fabricated a position that I don't hold (that I misrepresented your theory) and attack that misrepresentation as a logical fallacy. I can effortlessly analyze your logic problems because they actually exist but you can't do the same for me because there are no logical problems in my argument.

A theory that cannot explain key observations is not a scientific theory, it is pseudo-science. A scientist that believes a theory but refuses to acknowledge problems with it, is practicing pseudo-science. The NIST theory that you support without question is pseudo-science bunk because it does not explain the free fall period. The fact that you believe in pseudo-science theories without question raises serious doubts that you are the skeptic you purport to be. The fact that you disregard scientific evidence that completely refutes your faith-based pseudo-science theory raises serious doubts as to your allegiance to good science.

Excuse me, but I can't find the highlighted claims you're making anywhere in the NIST report.

I pointed out this NIST update early on in this thread:

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.

All this is pretty much what was in the final WTC7 report, NIST NCSTAR1A.

What I am not finding there are references to anything even remotely similar to your claim of "8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

I ask again: please tell us (page and/or section number) where NIST says that ""8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 were completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

Either supply the exact citations to support your bizarre claims of what the NIST model requires, or admit that you have been arguing against your own straw man "model."

What does NIST actually say? It's been mentioned many times on this very thread. Here's one such by Alien Entity:

Except that you are again wrong; the NIST theory does explain the freefall period. Your point is a strawman (of course)
Here is one such explanation, there are others..

'Chapter 12, NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 p.602

'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

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the *upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below*. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft. ''

I ask again, where in tarnation are you coming up with "this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet" ???

If these numbers (0.6 seconds here, 2 feet there,etc. etc.) are your own calculations, and not those of NIST, then your argument is by definition a straw man.

If NIST does indeed use these quantities in their reports and analyses, then simply cite page numbers for those mentions.

You keep saying "The fact is that this is the only rational explanation for what could have happened according to this crackpot theory."

The problem is that this "rational explanation" is YOUR explanation.

If you want to call it a crackpot theory, go right ahead. If you want to accuse NIST of using a "crackpot theory", then it is incumbent on you to show precisely where this "crackpot theory" is stated.

And if/when you can't, the case for your use of Straw Man is proven. This is why I said earlier

I'm not asking for your interpretations of the consequences of NIST's statements, I am asking for the specific claims highlighted above, stated that way, in the original NIST report(s).

Dave