Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

I don't know if it is, but it is published. On her website.

yes, in the broadest sense of the word, putting the written word into type, and then up online, is publishing.

By the scientific, nay, by the intellectually ACCEPTED definition of the word, published is to have your paper/article/book taken and placed into print by an accepted and reputable magazine or publishing company...online or hardcopy.

Press??? seriously. Come on, are you even buying that?

TAM

See the above please.

TAM

 

[ergo]

evidence:

Where is the physical evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the video evidence that WTC7 collapse involved explosives?
Where is the eye witness testimony that a series of explosions (flashes, booms) went off in the moments right before WTC7 Collapse?

Where are the whistleblowers testifying that explosives were planted?
Where is the det cord, the explosive residue, the left over thermite, the thermite applicators?

Where is the argument that all these things had to have happened?

We already know of Barry Jennings' eyewitness account.

 

[ergo]

See the above please.

published is to have your paper/article/book taken and placed into print by an accepted and reputable magazine or publishing company...online or hardcopy.

Where are these articles and books outside of NIST that defend your position?

 

[T.A.M.]

Where are these articles and books outside of NIST that defend your position?

Where did I MAKE SUCH A CLAIM about the official account?

You were arguing with another poster about the definition of published. I merely jumped in to clarify the definition, and to state that what you called published was not, but the generally accepted definition in science and intellectual circles.

Does there need to be another published book or article after such a complete and thorough account as NIST's report on WTC7? I don't think so.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Does there need to be another published book or article after such a complete and thorough account as NIST's report on WTC7? I don't think so.

So that's all you got, eh?

 

[T.A.M.]

Where is the argument that all these things had to have happened?

We already know of Barry Jennings' eyewitness account.

You mean the account that does not match up with the known occurences, and when they occurred on that day? You mean the unverified single witness account that makes no sense, and was a description of what he remembers from the moments he was running for his life????

You mean that SINGLE eyewitness account HOURS before WTC7 collapsed? That account?

TAM

 

[alienentity]

Where is the argument that all these things had to have happened?

We already know of Barry Jennings' eyewitness account.

In which he testifies that when he looked outside, there were buses and cars on fire, meaning the collapse of WTC 1 had already occurred.....

Yes, we know his testimony means he witnessed the collapse of WTC 1 from inside the building.
And we know that truthers have fixated on that confusion as some kind of 'proof', but that it is really nothing consequential.

But keep trying to deflect from the truth, by all means; it's what you do.

 

[T.A.M.]

So that's all you got, eh?

I dunno...I have never had a need to research for other reports on the collapse of WTC7 in particular. When someone proves NIST wrong, then perhaps other investigations will be needed.

Has the TM got anything close to the published investigation by NIST for WTC7???

anything?

TAM

 

[ergo]

Let me guess....Barry Jennings' account has been bee dunked? Oh no-o-o-z-z-e!

 

[carlitos]

So no video of a controlled demolition that experience a period of freefall acceleration. Colo(u)r me surprised.

 

[ergo]

So no video of a controlled demolition that experience a period of freefall acceleration. Colo(u)r me surprised.

I wasn't following that argument, but what would you need this for?

 

[T.A.M.]

Let me guess....Barry Jennings' account has been bee dunked? Oh no-o-o-z-z-e!

Debunked? No.

here, our wonderful filmmaker above, makes it all clear for you...

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

TAM

 

[carlitos]

I wasn't following that argument, but what would you need this for?

According to cmatrix, Tony Szamboti, ae911truth and others, freefall acceleration for a portion of the Salomon Brothers Building ("wtc7") is "evidence" for controlled demolition. Ergo (excuse the pun), a period of freefall acceleration for another controlled demolition would illustrate this phenomenon. Just one. There are lots of them on the youtubes. Will one be presented?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Please state how my definitions of the above are incorrect.

T.A.M. has done that already:

Their theory is that controlled demolition brought it down.

ok, may be I'll give you that one, although I don't recall them ever coming out and saying it like you did...guess they are too cowardly, or too busy JAQing off.

Still, they should be a little more specific. NIST theory on WTC1/2 was not "They came down cuz of the planes hitting them". No, they had to provide a plausible theory as to HOW the planes hitting the towers RESULTED in the collapses.

Similarly, a REAL theory from AE911 would be something like,

"Using preplanted silent thermite, elements of the USG and wealthy interests, had WTC intentionally demolished."

Still I'll give you half marks.

T.A.M.'s being generous. As theories go, "controlled demolition brought it down" is akin to "planes hit them so they fell down" or "the dinosaurs were killed off by a great flood". Leaving aside the fact that AE911 hasn't even been that specific, theories that seek to explain observed phenomena in terms of known science/engineering are expected to propose a reasonably specific and plausible mechanism.

"Controlled demolition" is specific enough, but it refers to a process that involves weeks of preparing an unoccupied building. If you are really proposing "controlled demolition" as a theory, then your theory is not remotely plausible. I suspect you are engaging in the kind of sophistry that uses "controlled demolition" as comfortably familiar-sounding code for some novel form of demolition that would have involved secret preparation of the building (or none at all) and/or double top secret hush-a-boom explosives whose nature is not yet known to science; in that case, your theory's mechanism is neither specific nor plausible.

The observations of the visual evidence and their comparisons to the official story versus that of a controlled demolition is the definition of scientific empiricism.

say what?

1. They have not reviewed all of the video or photographic evidence. NIST has only just released it.

2. How did they compare the "official story" to "controlled demolition" in a scientific fashion? "Gee it looked like CD" doesn't cut it.

As T.A.M. said, scientific empiricism should not be identified with speculation of uninformed or poorly educated partisans based on nothing more than casual visual impressions.

They have provided extensive evidence based on the visual evidence and the knowledge of the professionals who support them.

Wrong again.

1. They have provided NO EVIDENCE. Please look up what evidence is. Personal speculation regardless of educational background is not evidence.

2. Despite all the alleged knowledge of its 1300 members, the group has not provided a single published paper countering the NIST report on WTC7. As a matter of fact, I have not seen a single UNPUBLISHED paper that even comes close to a comprehensive rebuttal to the paper.

Evidence for controlled demolition would have to include evidence that the WTC towers were unoccupied for some period in advance of 11 September 2001 and that they were prepared for demolition during that time; the evidence would also have to include evidence of explosives. No such evidence has been provided.

Nor has evidence been provided for secret preparation or for the existence and use of double top secret hush-a-boom explosives.

No matter how we interpret your "controlled demolition", no evidence for it has been provided.

Triple fail.

 

[ergo]

T.A.M.'s being generous. As theories go, "controlled demolition brought it down" is akin to "planes hit them so they fell down" or "the dinosaurs were killed off by a great flood".

Right. Or, "global collapse ensued."

 

[Newtons Bit]

Right. Or, "global collapse ensued."

That statement is backed up with engineering. See the Bazant paper.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Right. Or, "global collapse ensued."

You're still doubting gravity?

 

[ergo]

You're still doubting resistance?

 

[excaza]

You still don't understand physics?

Or material properties?

 

[ergo]

According to cmatrix, Tony Szamboti, ae911truth and others, freefall acceleration for a portion of the Salomon Brothers Building ("wtc7") is "evidence" for controlled demolition. Ergo (excuse the pun), a period of freefall acceleration for another controlled demolition would illustrate this phenomenon. Just one. There are lots of them on the youtubes. Will one be presented?

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.