Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[carlitos]

Am I the only one who thinks of this when I read the incredulity displayed here?

 

[ergo]

you were just looking for an excuse to post that video

 

[beachnut]

you were just looking for an excuse to post that video

I forgot, are you the smoke means no fire person?


Proof WTC 7 was on fire, and that smoke was from fires in WTC7. Fire destroys the strength of steel, 911 truth spews lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

 

[Dave Rogers]

Anatomy of a lie

ROFL An object in free fall has GPE but it is not available to do work. All the available GPE has been converted to KE. That is the definition of free fall.

There you go again, lying.

I think it's important to point out exactly how and why cmatrix is lying here, because it's a good illustration of how truthers employ logical fallacies to give false arguments the appearance of rigour. The fallacy in question is the fallacy of equivocation, in which a word is assigned two different meanings in different statements, and a conclusion is then drawn from the two statements on the mistaken premise that the word has the same meaning in both. In cmatrix's case, the word is "available", but there's also an element of misdirection in the use of the perfect tense verb "has been".

Let's start from what cmatrix would have said if he was honest. He would have said that, when an object is in freefall, any gravitational potential energy released during the period of freefall can only be converted to kinetic energy. That much is completely correct; in fact, it can serve as a definition of freefall. But cmatrix has changed this to say that all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. That can only be true if the word "available" is defined to mean "already released between the beginning of freefall and the instant at which we're describing the object as being in freefall"; in fact, it's a bizarre definition of the word "available", because that "has been" means that it excludes the gravitational potential energy of the object at the instant when we're describing it; in other words, "available", in this definition, excludes the available gravitational potential energy.

But cmatrix has eventually stated, however unclearly, that that is his definition of the word "available"; it means "released from the moment the building entered freefall to some arbitrary moment while it's still in freefall". So now, if he's established that, he'll probably go on to his next statement, which is something along the lines of: Since all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, therefore there is no energy available to collapse supports. And that's where the fallacy of equivocation will comes in. In this statement, cmatrix will switch from the meaning of "available" he gave above to a new meaning of "available", which is the conventional one of "the initial gravitational potential energy of the structure".

I'm not applying for the million pound prize by making that prediction, not least because cmatrix will hotly deny that he was intending any such thing (while probably going straight ahead and doing it in a different post). It's based on his absurd argument throughout the whole of this thread, which boils down to the assertion that, if WTC7 was in freefall at any point in its collapse, then at no point - even when it wasn't in freefall - could any energy have been converted to fracture energy. It's a completely untenable argument, so he's tried to run a misdirection play by equivocating the meaning of "available". And that, actually, shows that he's well aware that his argument holds no water, and that the only way he can make it look plausible is by twisting the meaning of words.

In other words, what we've come to expect from truthers; propose a theory that makes no sense, then bluster and lie to try to get people to believe it.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Unless you are able to show something else

I'll be extracing trace data correlating vertical and Southward motion for WTC 7 fairly soon.

Will see what unfolds from that.

 

[ozeco41]

There you go again, lying.

I think it's important to point out exactly how and why cmatrix is lying here, because it's a good illustration of how truthers employ logical fallacies to give false argum...
...[ Edited - a clinical carve up of cmatrix's nonsense]...
In other words, what we've come to expect from truthers; propose a theory that makes no sense, then bluster and lie to try to get people to believe it.

Dave

Well said. Although we usually should not give credibility to truther nonsense by responding the occasional clinical carve up is valuable.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll be extracing trace data correlating vertical and Southward motion for WTC 7 fairly soon.

Will see what unfolds from that.

My bet, is that you will find, that the building collapsed.

 

[ergo]

I forgot, are you the smoke means no fire person?


Proof WTC 7 was on fire, and that smoke was from fires in WTC7. Fire destroys the strength of steel, 911 truth spews lies.

Interesting video, beachnut. It definitely shows fires on the north face. On a couple of floors.

What's interesting is that some cars have been toasted--burnt down to the steel. Other cars on the same street have their glass broken, but no sign of fire damage.

If fire breaks glass, it looks like about 90% of windows on the north side are intact.

The building at this point is supposedly in danger of collapse, and fires are raging somewhere, yet a reporter and camera operator are able to wander around at will. The reporter doesn't have to shout above any noise. No one is telling him to get the hell away from the building. And the fire coming out the east side of the building is obviously fresh, judging by the thick, fast-moving black smoke.

There are combustibles in the street--the street itself has not been burning--yet some cars are completely toasted. The closest possible sources of serious fire for this kind of damage, WTC 5 or 6, both low-rises, are across the street and behind here.

The opening footage is of the inside of a building across Barclay street which has its lobby and glass blown out, yet nothing burned inside, and WTC 7 itself hasn't fallen yet.

 

[BigAl]

Interesting video, beachnut. It definitely shows fires on the north face. On a couple of floors.

What's interesting is that some cars have been toasted--burnt down to the steel. Other cars on the same street have their glass broken, but no sign of fire damage.

If fire breaks glass, it looks like about 90% of windows on the north side are intact.

The building at this point is supposedly in danger of collapse, and fires are raging somewhere, yet a reporter and camera operator are able to wander around at will. The reporter doesn't have to shout above any noise. No one is telling him to get the hell away from the building. And the fire coming out the east side of the building is obviously fresh, judging by the thick, fast-moving black smoke.

There are combustibles in the street--the street itself has not been burning--yet some cars are completely toasted. The closest possible sources of serious fire for this kind of damage, WTC 5 or 6, both low-rises, are across the street and behind here.

The opening footage is of the inside of a building across Barclay street which has its lobby and glass blown out, yet nothing burned inside, and WTC 7 itself hasn't fallen yet.

All of the above is a big So what?. Unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.

40+ firemen that report fire and damage and collapse to WTC7. You can find their names and full-text transcripts via the links, below. 40 is most of the firemen working the WTC7 Fire, no firemen contradict these reports.

41 firemen mention severity of fire in WTC7
29 firemen mention damage to WTC7
31 firemen predict collapse

Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNGds_AjhkwP4V4RW9zTNH4GK3QezQ&cad=rja
Full text transcripts for those names: http://graphics8.nytimes.compackage...812_WTC_GRAPHICmet_WTC_histories_full_01.html​

 

[twinstead]

Who, for example?

oops. I just invited someone to post the spammed list again...

So are you one of the proponents of the theory that every single expert world wide who hasn't come out and supported the commonly-held narrative, probably by hand-written letter in triplicate hand delivered to you must mean they disagree with it?

Or are you one of the proponents of the theory that even the contributers to the NIST report and the other respected papers on the collapses, unless they express support of the commonly-held narrative by hand-written letter in triplicate hand delivered to you must mean the disagree with it.

Or both? Don't you think a few of them may have an issue with covering up mass murder?

 

[twinstead]

Interesting video, beachnut. It definitely shows fires on the north face. On a couple of floors.

What's interesting is that some cars have been toasted--burnt down to the steel. Other cars on the same street have their glass broken, but no sign of fire damage.

If fire breaks glass, it looks like about 90% of windows on the north side are intact.

The building at this point is supposedly in danger of collapse, and fires are raging somewhere, yet a reporter and camera operator are able to wander around at will. The reporter doesn't have to shout above any noise. No one is telling him to get the hell away from the building. And the fire coming out the east side of the building is obviously fresh, judging by the thick, fast-moving black smoke.

There are combustibles in the street--the street itself has not been burning--yet some cars are completely toasted. The closest possible sources of serious fire for this kind of damage, WTC 5 or 6, both low-rises, are across the street and behind here.

The opening footage is of the inside of a building across Barclay street which has its lobby and glass blown out, yet nothing burned inside, and WTC 7 itself hasn't fallen yet.

This response just goes to show me that you are totally unwilling to consider even the most clear evidence that you may possibly be wrong.

 

[bill smith]

Interesting video, beachnut. It definitely shows fires on the north face. On a couple of floors.

What's interesting is that some cars have been toasted--burnt down to the steel. Other cars on the same street have their glass broken, but no sign of fire damage.

If fire breaks glass, it looks like about 90% of windows on the north side are intact.

The building at this point is supposedly in danger of collapse, and fires are raging somewhere, yet a reporter and camera operator are able to wander around at will. The reporter doesn't have to shout above any noise. No one is telling him to get the hell away from the building. And the fire coming out the east side of the building is obviously fresh, judging by the thick, fast-moving black smoke.

There are combustibles in the street--the street itself has not been burning--yet some cars are completely toasted. The closest possible sources of serious fire for this kind of damage, WTC 5 or 6, both low-rises, are across the street and behind here.

The opening footage is of the inside of a building across Barclay street which has its lobby and glass blown out, yet nothing burned inside, and WTC 7 itself hasn't fallen yet.

From the same video series by the looks of it. Look at the 1:18 second mark in the video. That looks like what the aboriginies call a willy-willy. It's like a mini tornado.

A small,relatively weak whirlwind that can arise by vonvection in the air above a strongly heated surface.

http://www.youtube.com/user/IC911STUDIES#p/u/7/ZduP7HTM3cg

 

[cmatrix]

Anatomy of a distraction

There you go again, lying.

I think it's important to point out exactly how and why cmatrix is lying here, because it's a good illustration of how truthers employ logical fallacies to give false arguments the appearance of rigour. The fallacy in question is the fallacy of equivocation, in which a word is assigned two different meanings in different statements, and a conclusion is then drawn from the two statements on the mistaken premise that the word has the same meaning in both. In cmatrix's case, the word is "available", but there's also an element of misdirection in the use of the perfect tense verb "has been".

Let's start from what cmatrix would have said if he was honest. He would have said that, when an object is in freefall, any gravitational potential energy released during the period of freefall can only be converted to kinetic energy. That much is completely correct; in fact, it can serve as a definition of freefall. But cmatrix has changed this to say that all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. That can only be true if the word "available" is defined to mean "already released between the beginning of freefall and the instant at which we're describing the object as being in freefall"; in fact, it's a bizarre definition of the word "available", because that "has been" means that it excludes the gravitational potential energy of the object at the instant when we're describing it; in other words, "available", in this definition, excludes the available gravitational potential energy.

But cmatrix has eventually stated, however unclearly, that that is his definition of the word "available"; it means "released from the moment the building entered freefall to some arbitrary moment while it's still in freefall". So now, if he's established that, he'll probably go on to his next statement, which is something along the lines of: Since all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, therefore there is no energy available to collapse supports. And that's where the fallacy of equivocation will comes in. In this statement, cmatrix will switch from the meaning of "available" he gave above to a new meaning of "available", which is the conventional one of "the initial gravitational potential energy of the structure".

I'm not applying for the million pound prize by making that prediction, not least because cmatrix will hotly deny that he was intending any such thing (while probably going straight ahead and doing it in a different post). It's based on his absurd argument throughout the whole of this thread, which boils down to the assertion that, if WTC7 was in freefall at any point in its collapse, then at no point - even when it wasn't in freefall - could any energy have been converted to fracture energy. It's a completely untenable argument, so he's tried to run a misdirection play by equivocating the meaning of "available". And that, actually, shows that he's well aware that his argument holds no water, and that the only way he can make it look plausible is by twisting the meaning of words.

In other words, what we've come to expect from truthers; propose a theory that makes no sense, then bluster and lie to try to get people to believe it.

Dave

I am not lying and I have not engaged in any equivocation whatsoever. You claim I lied because you believe I stated something incorrectly. When someone states something incorrectly either they are stating a falsehood that they know is a false or they are simply mistaken. You completely ignore the latter possibility and jump to the former despite having no evidence whatsoever that it is the correct one. You have made another mistake.

The statement "when an object is in freefall, any gravitational potential energy released during the period of freefall can only be converted to kinetic energy" is the same thing as saying "when an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy". The latter is merely specifically describing the conversion after it has happened. In this context "available" means "was available" and should be clear to any reasonable person from the "has been" part. You are taking this out of context in order to falsely claim that I am saying "available now" is the same as "was available". You have made another mistake.

"It's based on his absurd argument throughout the whole of this thread, which boils down to the assertion that, if WTC7 was in freefall at any point in its collapse, then at no point - even when it wasn't in freefall - could any energy have been converted to fracture energy." I have never made that statement. You just created a straw man and attacked it instead of the actual statements I have made. You have made another mistake. Your entire ridiculous post is meant to be a distraction so that you don't have to admit you made a mistake. But all it amounts to is another series of mistakes.

Epic epic epic debunker fail.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The statement "when an object is in freefall, any gravitational potential energy released during the period of freefall can only be converted to kinetic energy" is the same thing as saying "when an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy". The latter is merely specifically describing the conversion after it has happened. In this context "available" means "was available" and should be clear to any reasonable person from the "has been" part. You are taking this out of context in order to falsely claim that I am saying "available now" is the same as "was available". You have made another mistake.

Let's take that a bit further, then. Suppose we drop a brick from a mile and a foot high. After it's fallen a foot, it's in freefall. Now let's apply the cmatrix theory of gravity to it.

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy."

So, we've got a brick a mile in the air, falling freely, but according to the cmatrix theory of gravity all its available gravitational potential energy - meaning all the potential energy available now - has been converted to kinetic energy. So it has no available gravitational potential energy, even though it's a mile up and falling freely, because it has all been converted to kinetic energy.

Need I say more?

Epic epic epic debunker fail.

Yes, but only at educating a fool.

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

Let's take that a bit further, then. Suppose we drop a brick from a mile and a foot high. After it's fallen a foot, it's in freefall. Now let's apply the cmatrix theory of gravity to it.

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy."

So, we've got a brick a mile in the air, falling freely, but according to the cmatrix theory of gravity all its available gravitational potential energy - meaning all the potential energy available now - has been converted to kinetic energy. So it has no available gravitational potential energy, even though it's a mile up and falling freely, because it has all been converted to kinetic energy.

Need I say more?



Yes, but only at educating a fool.

Dave

Once again, my statement:

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy."

applies to the past. That should be apparent to any reasonable person by the "has been" part. Bizarrely you are trying to claim it says something about the present. In other words, you have once again built a straw man an attacked it instead of my actual position.

 

[GlennB]

Once again, my statement:

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy."

applies to the past. That should be apparent to any reasonable person by the "has been" part. Bizarrely you are trying to claim it says something about the present.

Not quite so simple as that, cmatrix, grammatically speaking.

The "has been" construction can also include the present. I have been a teacher for 10 years includes now. Purely talking about a past career we'd say I was a teacher for 10 years.

How long have you been ill/had a high temperature? etc etc implies you are ill/have a high temperature right now.

Sometimes it's less clear -- I have been to Paris 3 times leaves it unclear whether you are in Paris right now, but this construction indicates a series of discrete events anyway.

Whether this illuminates your discussion I don't know. [/grammar nazi mode]

 

[beachnut]

Once again, my statement:

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy." ...

Your statement is total nonsense, and is not covered by reality based physics. It would be great if this was the reason you have paranoid conspiracy theories and make up delusions about 911.

Show the formula and then with numbers show the PE and KE along the path of a free falling object.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, my statement:

"When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy."

applies to the past.

So, in fact, your definition of the word "available" means "not available", because it specifically excludes the currently available potential energy of an object. Interesting.

So, let's look at the past. At what point in the past of the object does its gravitational potential energy become "available"? If you mean the point at which the object first begins to accelerate at precisely 1g, then your statement, apart from being tautological, is irrelevant to WTC7, because we know that GPE was released before the facade's acceleration increased to a value close to 1g. If you mean the initial GPE, then your statement is simply untrue.

So what, precisely, is your definition of the word "available", in this context? What details of the history of the falling object does it assume, and what must have already happened to the object for your highly personal (and contradictory to the conventional) definition of the word "available" to be even applicable?

Dave

 

[cmatrix]

So, in fact, your definition of the word "available" means "not available", because it specifically excludes the currently available potential energy of an object. Interesting.

So, let's look at the past. At what point in the past of the object does its gravitational potential energy become "available"? If you mean the point at which the object first begins to accelerate at precisely 1g, then your statement, apart from being tautological, is irrelevant to WTC7, because we know that GPE was released before the facade's acceleration increased to a value close to 1g. If you mean the initial GPE, then your statement is simply untrue.

So what, precisely, is your definition of the word "available", in this context? What details of the history of the falling object does it assume, and what must have already happened to the object for your highly personal (and contradictory to the conventional) definition of the word "available" to be even applicable?

Dave

As I have repeatedly said, with my statement: "When an object is in freefall, all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" "available" means "was available" not "not available" because in the past it was available. In the present the GPE that was available is now not available because it was converted to KE. Talking about the past in no way excludes currently available potential energy of an object. That is merely your bizarre straw man meant to divert attention away from your glaring mistakes.

The exact point when an object's gravitational potential energy becomes available to be converted to KE is when there is not complete resistance to gravity. The less resistance, the more GPE is available to be converted to KE. With no resistance, all the available GPE is converted to KE and the object is in free fall. There is no error, no tautology of any sort on my part. The problem is and has always been with you.

I think your overriding problem is one of equivocation. As well as equivocating "was available" with "available now" it seems you are also equivocating "available" with "stored". With an object completely resisting gravity there is stored GPE but it is not available to be converted to KE. If you are holding a charged battery, in a primitive sense the energy is available to you (in the future anyway) but it is not available to do work immediately until it is installed into something that can use the energy. When I am talking about available GPE I am assuming the audience has a basic understanding of high school-level physics concepts and understands that "available" means "available to do work". If not, and they are otherwise reasonable people they should ask for clarification instead of assuming bizarrely inappropriate and out of context interpretations.

So can we finally put this excruciatingly asinine excercise in pedantic futility aside so we can concentrate on the topic at hand: Dave Thomas's (and other JREF NIST apologists') unwavering belief in an unreplicated unreproducible and unprecedented theory with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever.

 

[excaza]

It would help if you didn't blanket your statements with asinine gibberish.