Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending. The first stage results from NIST setting an artificial start time as David Chandler eloquently explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

Free fall means 8 stories of structure were removed completely by something other than gravity or fire. Since NIST says the building came down due to the effects of gravity and fire their theory violates the laws of physics and is therefore a steaming pile of pseudo-science crap.

Once again with the vitriol that you complain others of voicing. You think because your vitriol is aimed at unnamed scientist or unnamed JREF members that it is any better and makes you any less hypocritical?

As you have been told many times, NIST did not state anything concerning 8 stories of removed columns, or 8 stories of free fall OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING. You are speculating, and putting in details that help support your view on this issue...plain and simple.

TAM

 

[Newtons Bit]

Free fall means 8 stories of structure were removed completely by something other than gravity or fire. Since NIST says the building came down due to the effects of gravity and fire their theory violates the laws of physics and is therefore a steaming pile of pseudo-science crap.

Prove it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unless you can show me another example of a single-column failure of a steel-framed skyscraper causing global collapse other than WTC7 then I am strongly of the opinion that noth NIST and your good self have the same agenda .

Fortunately both of you are equally unconvincing.

So the first time a building came down by Controlled Demolition, should people have doubted explosives brought it down, because they had never seen a controlled demolition before???

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

Once again with the vitriol that you complain others of voicing. You think because your vitriol is aimed at unnamed scientist or unnamed JREF members that it is any better and makes you any less hypocritical?

As you have been told many times, NIST did not state anything concerning 8 stories of removed columns, or 8 stories of free fall OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING. You are speculating, and putting in details that help support your view on this issue...plain and simple.

TAM

NIST said the free fall period continued for 32 m or approx. 8 stories. To have 8 stories of free fall (no resisting structure) you need 8 stories of resisting structure removed.

 

[bill smith]

Prove it.

delete

 

[T.A.M.]

NIST said the free fall period continued for 32 m or approx. 8 stories. To have 8 stories of free fall (no resisting structure) you need 8 stories of resisting structure removed.

oih....

NIST said THE NORTH FACE of the building fell, and that during that fall, OF THE NORTH FACE, there was a PERIOD of fall that was at a speed equal to that of a free falling entity.

Now, what details are you FILLING IN, in order to come up with...

"NIST said the WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds."

TAM

 

[cooperman]

oih....

NIST said THE NORTH FACE of the building fell, and that during that fall, OF THE NORTH FACE, there was a PERIOD of fall that was at a speed equal to that of a free falling entity.

Now, what details are you FILLING IN, in order to come up with...

"NIST said the WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds."

TAM

Did the north face of the building fall separately from the rest then? How ridiculous is the theory going to get?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Did the north face of the building fall separately from the rest then? How ridiculous is the theory going to get?

The "theory" hasn't changed. Maybe you should go read what it actually is.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

delete

nominated!!!

 

[T.A.M.]

Did the north face of the building fall separately from the rest then? How ridiculous is the theory going to get?

No, it did not fall seperately, but it did fall at a different rate as the rest, for that time period. It also fell at different rates at different times during the collapse. Parts of the building also fell inside, which you could not see...so I guess that is impossible also?

TAM

 

[tfk]

cm,

You haven't the SLIGHTEST clue what you are talking about.

Why don't you try to learn some remedial physics. Such as the difference between velocity & acceleration.

All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending. The first stage results from NIST setting an artificial start time as David Chandler eloquently explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

Here is the first chart taken from the Chandler link that YOU QUOTE (with some annotations by me in red.)

If you were able to read a velocity vs. time graph, and competent enough to turn it into acceleration vs. time, you'd realize the following:

The acceleration does NOT start into free fall "immediately". There is about 0.7 seconds during which its acceleration is significantly less than g. According to BOTH NIST & Chandler.

During this period, the resistance of the lower structure is a very high percent of G. During the time that the acceleration is approximately zero, the resistance of the building is approximately equal to the weight of the building. A very high resistance for a fatally damaged building...!!

Your claim that "the initial stage is a NIST fraud" is proven by Chandler's data to be laughably incompetent.

According to Chandler's data, there are times when the acceleration is significantly greater than G (as I've highlighted in the middle of the descent.

Since NIST says the building came down due to the effects of gravity and fire their theory violates the laws of physics and is therefore a steaming pile of pseudo-science crap.

It ain't science. It's engineering.

You wouldn't know either if one of them walked up & dope-slapped you into the middle of next week.

Time to face facts, Michael. When it comes to any of this stuff, you're incompetent. The only person that you are fooling is yourself.


Tom

 

[Horatius]

So, not only can cmatrix not understand our arguments, he doesn't even understand the arguments and evidence of the very movement he so passionately supports.

 

[beachnut]

All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending. The first stage results from NIST setting an artificial start time as David Chandler eloquently explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

Free fall means 8 stories of structure were removed completely by something other than gravity or fire. Since NIST says the building came down due to the effects of gravity and fire their theory violates the laws of physics and is therefore a steaming pile of pseudo-science crap.

This is total nonsense! But go ahead take this to the FBI or anyone and find out why 911 truth, David Chandler, and you have failed for 9 years to figure out fire, physics, and engineering.

Take your claims to someone. Publish it!

 

[bill smith]

So, not only can cmatrix not understand our arguments, he doesn't even understand the arguments and evidence of the very movement he so passionately supports.

Tell you what though Horatius. You don't see CM offering 25,000 dollars for somebody who can prove that the NIST report is a fraud do you ? Too much risk of having to pay up. Chandler for one would be right up there in the money.

He onlly offers the money for somebody who can prove the government story correct and there are no takers despite dozens or hundreds of scientists having been made aware of the challenge and it's details.. You do not really need to know more than that Readers. Who rurns down the chance to be a government hero and get 25 grand to boot if it can be done ?

NIST, the government body who carried out the years-long detailed and dragged-out report on the collapse of WTC7 cannot even enter the challenge because they have already refused to reveal essential data for the independent evaluation and validation of their fraudulent 'final' report. In other words despite a clamour of scientific protest from other experts including one group of 1,300 degreed/licenced architects and engineers, their work cannot be checked- by law.

 

[leftysergeant]

Who rurns down the chance to be a government hero and get 25 grand to boot if it can be done ?

Who needs the aggravation of having to haul a twoofer into court to make him pay up after the twoofer handwaves the actual proof away?

 

[Horatius]

Tell you what though Horatius. You don't see CM offering 25,000 dollars for somebody who can prove that the NIST report is a fraud do you ? Too much risk of having to pay up. Chandler for one would be right up there in the money.

He onlly offers the money for somebody who can prove the government story correct and there are no takers despite dozens or hundreds of scientists having been made aware of the challenge and it's details.. You do not really need to know more than that Readers. Who rurns down the chance to be a government hero and get 25 grand to boot if it can be done ?

Oh, Dear Readers (That sounds so North Korean!) (I don't bother addressing bs any more, as it's clear he's not even reading this thread. Or at least not remembering any of it), note that once again, bs has chosen to simply ignore absolutely everything anyone has said about the nature of cmatrix's challenge, not only in this thread, but anywhere on this forum.

What we've clearly established is that cmatrix's challenge is to prove something that absolutely no one - not even the fellow truthers who made the original claims he keeps asserting - believed happened. And even then, he refuses to seriously engage with anyone who honestly attempts to discuss his "challenge" because he is fundamentally incapable or unwilling to understand that such an analysis is a process, and is not going to arrive complete and perfect in a single post by one person.

And this is why such truther "challenges" are fundamentally dishonest and pointless, except as fodder for more truther propaganda. They're not interesting in the truth, they only want a good soundbite to use as a club on their opposition, and they will ignore any discussion that highlights the flaws in that soundbite. No matter what anyone says to them, we always come back to the same bare assertions they started with. They have learned nothing, and they never will.

 

[bill smith]

Oh, Dear Readers (That sounds so North Korean!) (I don't bother addressing bs any more, as it's clear he's not even reading this thread. Or at least not remembering any of it), note that once again, bs has chosen to simply ignore absolutely everything anyone has said about the nature of cmatrix's challenge, not only in this thread, but anywhere on this forum.

What we've clearly established is that cmatrix's challenge is to prove something that absolutely no one - not even the fellow truthers who made the original claims he keeps asserting - believed happened. And even then, he refuses to seriously engage with anyone who honestly attempts to discuss his "challenge" because he is fundamentally incapable or unwilling to understand that such an analysis is a process, and is not going to arrive complete and perfect in a single post by one person.

And this is why such truther "challenges" are fundamentally dishonest and pointless, except as fodder for more truther propaganda. They're not interesting in the truth, they only want a good soundbite to use as a club on their opposition, and they will ignore any discussion that highlights the flaws in that soundbite. No matter what anyone says to them, we always come back to the same bare assertions they started with. They have learned nothing, and they never will.

Well people can check the video and then imagine a simultaneous failure of every masssive vertical column in the building at the same level at the same time. Exclusively from fires mind you Readers. Office fires. The fires you see roaring out of the windows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MGdWNYLGc&feature=player_embedded#! wtc7 loop

So Readers I take it that you can easily see why we have no confidence in Horatius and his multitudes of cronies here on the jref.

 

[Horatius]

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[bill smith]

Dave, Did it ever cross your mind that the Penthouses were deliberately dropped into the building first so that they would be covered over by the main body of the building after the collapse ?

I mean it's a very unlikely confluence of events that would have the most heavy duty column in the entire building the most affected by the fires. And at 350 tons-odd for column 79 alone I guess thats not in dispute.

Maybe there was something inside the Penthouses that the perps wanted to hide. That would explain the unlikely initial collapse of the Penthouses.

 

[tsig]

I guess it's impossible for a tension load to break a piece of string, because for that to happen every one of thousands of separate fibers would have to break within a small fraction of a second. Can't happen, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Just like in the cartoons and as seen on screen. We've all seen those scenes where the hero is dangling on a rope and it begins to fray but it holds to the last strand so he can escape then it breaks and falls away.