Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[cmatrix]

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. ''

No I am right, you are wrong. They made a pronouncement that buckling removed 8 stories of structure to allow the free fall. They don't explain how that happened. They provide no proof that it happened or even that it is possible. In fact, this sort of thing has never happened in the history of mankind. As such, only gullible scientifically illiterate crackpots would accept that this happened merely on faith.

 

[T.A.M.]

OK since the NIST theory does not explain the free fall period, the crimp or the rolling but the CD theory does, you must agree the CD theory is the best theory.

Sorry...does not work that way. (A) The free fall is of no consequence to building safety, and (B) of no significance to anyone but truthers.

You can argue, and whine all you wish. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet like a little boy and call NIST's theory a crackpot theory and pseudo science until you are blue in the face, but it does not make it so, and it does not change the fact that the NIST theory has evidence on it's side, and it explains the collapses without problem.

for the TEN THOUSANDTH TIME, the 2.25 seconds of freefall of the NORTHERN FACE of WTC7, in the middle of the collapse IS INSIGNIFICANT. You are parroting it because it is the only desperate piece of CT lunacy the movement has left...

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

Here's another clear piece of evidence to address the latest lie of cmatrix (his false claim that NIST provides 'absolutely no explanation for the free fall whatsoever')

'NCSTAR 1-9, p 612 Chapter 14 Global Collapse, it states:

The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the downward movement of the building core. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.


And on p 606
'As the interior columns buckled at the lower floors and the corresponding upper column sections began to move downward, the exterior columns buckled inward at the lower floors as a result of floor pull-in forces caused by the downward movement of the building core. The floor connections to the columns had not yet failed in this region, as there were no fires observed on the West side of Floors 19 through 14 at any time during the day, so the floors were intact and able to pull the exterior columns inward.'

This is an engineering explanation for the collapse and of course the 2.25 s at virtual free fall acceleration. As C7 did months ago, cmatrix has received the answer, but will likely refuse to accept it. I expect him to either ignore the answer, handwave it away, move the goalposts and change the subject...

No this is an unsupported pronouncement not a supported explanation. You disagree? Explain how this is possible by pointing to experiments and data that show this in fact did happen? You can't because it's a crackpot pronouncement not an explanation. Their "explanation" is equivalent to saying "and then a miracle happened".

 

[T.A.M.]

NIST provides absolutely no explanation for the free fall whatsoever, just a pronouncement meant to be taken on faith by the scientifically illiterate and the gullible. The CD theory explains the crimp, the rolling and the free fall so it is the theory that should be accepted.

excuse me. With a diploma in Electronic Engineering, a Bachelor of Medical Science, an MD, and a CCFP certificate, I am certainly not scientifically illiterate. As for you, seems the jury is out.

Some generic, vague, all encompassing "CD" that covers your "crimping" and "rolling" is about as useless without evidence, as utters on a bull.

You are not even capable of understanding, let alone explaining, the science involved in the bullcrap you spew.

Like I said, empirical evidence supports NIST. crackpot pseudoscience and "It looks like CD" incredulity supports the "CD" theory.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm sure a group could produce a report if they had the millions of taxpayers dollars that were given to NIST as well as complete access to all the evidence and subpoena power. Do you seriously think the US govt. is going to fund a report that shows a group of powerful psychopathic terrorists have infiltrated every aspect of the US government and basically control the media?

I agree, for the idiots that call themselves scientists and engineers that work with the truth movement, it would take MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, to produce a report. To produce all that NIST did for WTC1/2/7 it would cost them TRILLIONS.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Where is the evidence that fire caused WTC 7 to fall? Please, provide THE EVIDENCE for fire-initiated collapse.

It has been provided for you courtesy of NIST. Go read their full report on WTC7...it is all there in a convenient package.

Now, since you are the one promoting the contentious, not-accepted theory of CD, please rather then skirt my question with a request of the same (the lowest form of dodge by the way), provide the evidence I requested.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The NIST reports were published by NIST. That is, self-published. Not much different than some guy putting something on the Net.

Why don't you read the entire conversation rather then responding to my response to another persons post out of context like a madman.

I was commenting on another persons discussion over what Published evidence the truth movement had. I did not say anything relating to the status, published, self published, etc... of NIST.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I think ergo like me is in fact arguing this:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is impossible in a fire-initiated collpase.
(c) This, in fact, can only be explained by controlled demolition.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

(b) is something you have to prove because it has never ever been seen before in the history of mankind. (c) follows from (b). We win you lose. Deal with it.

Regarding (a): you are right...the part of the WTC7 collapse that was freefall was 2.25 seconds of the NORTH FACE of the building, somewhere in the MIDDLE of the entire collapse.

Regarding (b): You have provided ZERO proof of this, and your opinion by itself is worthless...got evidence?

Regarding (c): You have provided ZERO evidence of this...got evidence?

Regarding (d): see my comments above.

EPIC FAIL!!!!!

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

No I am right, you are wrong. They made a pronouncement that buckling removed 8 stories of structure to allow the free fall. They don't explain how that happened. They provide no proof that it happened or even that it is possible. In fact, this sort of thing has never happened in the history of mankind. As such, only gullible scientifically illiterate crackpots would accept that this happened merely on faith.

oh I love this one...look at the grand proclamations (and as usual, totally from uneducated personal incredulity)...

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!

Beyond Stundie worthy...we need a new category for this.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

This is just straight-up paranoia. You should print out this post and bring it to a mental health professional.

It's not paranoia to state a possibility. Your completely unsupported pronouncement does nothing to prove this possibility is impossible. If 9/11 was an inside job this means the actual terrorists are in control of the US government. They and the media are covering up what really happened. Only psychopaths could kill 3000 people in cold blood and over a million more in the resulting wars.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Good grief what a ridiculous pile of crap. I had to read that over several times to make sure you weren't joking. In H1-H2 all the available GPE is converted to kinetic energy and used to break up structure. In H2-H3 all the available gravitational potential energy has been solely converted to kinetic energy. H2-H3 is what my statement referred to and is absolutely correct. A glaring mistake has been made by you. It is your explanation that is not consistent with simple Newtonian mechanics since you don't account for the energy used to break up the structure.

Looks like cmatrix can't write down a Lagrangian either.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's not paranoia to state a possibility. Your completely unsupported pronouncement does nothing to prove this possibility is impossible. If 9/11 was an inside job this means the actual terrorists are in control of the US government. They and the media are covering up what really happened. Only psychopaths could kill 3000 people in cold blood and over a million more in the resulting wars.

Its possible that the Chinese did it. It is possible that DEW from space did it. It is possible that it was all a dream...

No it is not paranoia to state a possibility, but it sure isn't smart, rational, or logical to making proclamations and declarations based on one either.

TAM

 

[alienentity]

Here was my prediction of cmatrix's reaction to evidence which contradicted his obvious lie:

'As C7 did months ago, cmatrix has received the answer, but will likely refuse to accept it. I expect him to either ignore the answer, handwave it away, move the goalposts and change the subject...'

Predictably, he now attempts to weasel out of his own statement by denying NIST's explanation, calling it a mere 'pronouncement'.

Yes, when a Truther is confronted with their own statements, there is a distinct sound of goalposts sliding sideways, along with the quiet sigh of their integrity dying a bit more.

cmatrix, you've earned a place on my ignore list. Goodbye

 

[cmatrix]

Okay, so you've admitted that it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure, correct?


You also indicate that creating a CD that produces a free-fall period is "quite expensive". Can we also assume it's more difficult and complicated to do that?


So then, you have to explain: if such a free-fall period is not necessary for a CD, why then did They pay extra, and put in the extra effort, to produce such a period of free-fall, if such is not necessary? Why did They go out of their way to leave such an obvious (to you, at least) smoking gun?

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

 

[Horatius]

Yes it's possible to have a total global collapse using gravity to remove the resisting structure but it's impossible to have free fall in such a collapse. Having a free-fall CD is not really more difficult and complicated you just have to put more explosives in, so every possible support is removed. Why they did that I have no idea. Psychopaths are notorious for being incompetent and don't care one bit about wasting other people's money.

So, you're really going to go with the "We're really just that Evil!" answer?

 

[cmatrix]

1) You wrote earlier
So now you are arguing against yourself....a little schizophrenic perhaps, but par for the course really

You are claiming that only CD can produce freefall, so the burden of proof is actually on you, not on NIST. NIST is not claiming CD, and they have indeed produced copious engineering evidence for fire-induced collapse. NIST has met the burden of proof for its hypothesis.

Where is your evidence? M.I.A. after 9 years.

Here's my statement you maliciously took out of context:

"Controlled demolitions don't require free fall. In fact it's quite expensive to have free fall in a CD. You have to blow out _all_ the structure in the way."

Any sane individual can clearly see that I am not arguing with myself and can also see the reprehensible nature of your argumentative abilities.

Sure I can prove it's impossible for fire to cause free fall in a building. Fire can only cause gradual deformations in steel structures because it is not explosive. Only explosives can instantaneously remove large steel structures in a precisely timed and near instantaneous manner which is required to have free fall. Every time in the past we have seen building come down like WTC 7 it was caused by CD. Fire has never ever caused a building to come down like that. Therefore anyone who assumes fire brought down WTC 7 but not CD is a scientifically illiterate crackpot. Again one counter-example will prove me wrong.

 

[cmatrix]

Provide your proof. Now. You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Sure. In free fall all the available gravitational potential energy must converted to kinetic energy. A gravity-driven collapse requires some of the available GPE to be used to deform and remove structure. A gravity-driven collapse can therefore never attain free fall because not all of the available GPE is available to be converted to KE.

 

[cmatrix]

Videos of objects falling in a "gravity-driven collapse" at free fall and faster than free fall have been posted in this very thread. Your failure to understand these forces while offering a reward to prove something about physics results in an arrogance to ignorance ratio off the charts.

I'm not the one with the understanding problem. I must have missed the videos of gravity-driven free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

 

[uke2se]

I'm not the one with the understanding problem. I must have missed the videos of gravity-driven free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

I must have missed the videos of controlled demolition induced free-fall building collapses. Presumably because they don't exist.

 

[tsig]

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.

Nothing counts but visual evidence?