Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[tsig]

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.

Buckled columns have no power to resist. The columns buckled.

 

[cmatrix]

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

So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.

 

[cmatrix]

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.



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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=553&pictureid=3820[/qimg]

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.



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

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

 

[T.A.M.]

So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.

your guess is correct. My guess is you only know because you were fed it by Chandler or some other believer.

Nice avatar btw, it suits you perfectly.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

Please tell me what it is a sign of, because you have done nothing here since you began posting, but display Amateurish ridicule of NIST and its scientists, and nothing but unsupported pronouncements with respect to the alleged TOTAL BUILDING FREE FALL, which is complete fiction.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

Yep. You don't even know what your own side is saying about this collapse. We might as well forget about trying to explain what our side says to you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You're repeating a topic we've already debunked, cmatrix. Why?

 

[excaza]

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?

 

[tfk]

cm,

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?

Because CM is too busy committing a classic Logical Fallacy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories.

No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.

Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.

Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.

Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.

He's already submitted papers to the Journal of Applied "Oh yeah? I don't *think* so!"

 

[cmatrix]

cm,



Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.



LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.



Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...



Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.



I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously. You can attempt to mislead the discussion all you like but you can't explain away the free fall period.

"As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway."

Now this is truly a bizarre statement. Who ever said the initial downward motion was the cause of the collapse?

David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.

The erroneous word is the one emboldened.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

He says it HAS to be removed instantaneously. Has anyone seen cmatrix back that up with any logic? Math? Anything?

 

[alienentity]

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

etc...

Riddle me this: if freefall acceleration is THE indicator of CD, then why didn't the twin towers fall at freefall acceleration as well?

The 2.25s you're fixating on does not override all the other information, unless you're attempting to reduce the debate into a non-scientific rhetorical battle, that is.

 

[cmatrix]

No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.



Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.



Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave

For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.

Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.

Exposing the obvious implications of an opponent's position is not building a straw man. In order to expose a straw man you have to actually point out the misrepresentation. You can't just wave your hands making unsupported pronouncements.

The NIST apologists here aren't even presenting an actual position, just one with massive holes in it. NIST cannot explain free fall nor can their apologists. NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?