Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Lyrandar]

NIST says WTC 7 had 2.25 s of free fall. They also say the lower columns buckled causing the building to come down. That means buckling removed completely eight stories of structure. The buckling had to be simultaneous over all columns because all four corners came down at the same rate. Since buckled columns all have some resistance not none at all, the columns all had to simultaneously snap. Plus, this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet.

The problem with this is that we might still see gravitational acceleration even if the columns are still providing a minimal amount of resistance. This is why, I would assume, NIST uses the term "negligible" and not "none" when talking about the support provided by the columns. You are somewhat correct in your assertion that a bent column will probably still have resistance, I think, but I'm not sure where you're getting your certainty that the column has to snap entirely before its resistance drops to a negligible level.

Either way, the claim that the columns snapped simultaneously inside .6 seconds is not, in fact, implicit in NIST's claim, since the required conditions for NIST's claim can be satisfied by seriously damaged or weakened columns as well as completely destroyed ones.

 

[triforcharity]

Thanks for further illustrating my point that it is extremely hard if not impossible to snap a column after buckling down only two feet. All these pictures show columns severely bent but not broken.

You do realize that the pictures you posted, are not from 7WTC, and are in fact from the Twin Towers?

You also realize that the columns that you posted, are in fact bent, AND broken?

 

[Edx]

Thanks for further illustrating my point that it is extremely hard if not impossible to snap a column after buckling down only two feet. All these pictures show columns severely bent but not broken.

Wow.

So you show bent WTC columns and say it had to be your mythical super weapons used to demolish the WTC because it cant be fire because fire cant do that to steel.

Then I show you pictures that prove that fire can and does do that to steel and ... you say it proves your point?!

Good job truther.

 

[cmatrix]

Excuse me, but I can't find the highlighted claims you're making anywhere in the NIST report.

I pointed out this NIST update early on in this thread:


All this is pretty much what was in the final WTC7 report, NIST NCSTAR1A.

What I am not finding there are references to anything even remotely similar to your claim of "8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

I ask again: please tell us (page and/or section number) where NIST says that ""8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 were completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet."

Either supply the exact citations to support your bizarre claims of what the NIST model requires, or admit that you have been arguing against your own straw man "model."

What does NIST actually say? It's been mentioned many times on this very thread. Here's one such by Alien Entity:




I ask again, where in tarnation are you coming up with "this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet" ???

If these numbers (0.6 seconds here, 2 feet there,etc. etc.) are your own calculations, and not those of NIST, then your argument is by definition a straw man.

If NIST does indeed use these quantities in their reports and analyses, then simply cite page numbers for those mentions.

You keep saying "The fact is that this is the only rational explanation for what could have happened according to this crackpot theory."

The problem is that this "rational explanation" is YOUR explanation.

If you want to call it a crackpot theory, go right ahead. If you want to accuse NIST of using a "crackpot theory", then it is incumbent on you to show precisely where this "crackpot theory" is stated.

And if/when you can't, the case for your use of Straw Man is proven. This is why I said earlier

Dave

The highlighted problems are not in the NIST report. I never said they were. This is the whole point I'm making. You seem to be trying to argue that if NIST does not present a problem, then the problem doesn't exist. In science, the whole point of peer review is to point out problems researchers missed or deliberately tried to conceal. Glossing over problems is what you see in crackpot pseudo-science not good science. Do you feel no one should be questioning any scientific document? If people point out obvious problems that is building straw men? Give it up.

NIST's 1.75 second figure is highly deceptive since they timed the collapse by observing the middle of the roof which bowed before the corners came down. By measuring the middle of the roof they get an inflated initial pre-freefall period. For this reason their measurements should be discarded and Chandler's more accurate data measuring the corner acceleration should be used instead:

http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

That is where the .6 seconds come from. Do you have any evidence that his work is invalid? If so present it. If you can't refute his work, then deal with the problems I have presented. If you can't tend to these problems you cannot support the theory you believe in. That means it is faith-based pseudo-science not science.

 

[cmatrix]

The problem with this is that we might still see gravitational acceleration even if the columns are still providing a minimal amount of resistance. This is why, I would assume, NIST uses the term "negligible" and not "none" when talking about the support provided by the columns. You are somewhat correct in your assertion that a bent column will probably still have resistance, I think, but I'm not sure where you're getting your certainty that the column has to snap entirely before its resistance drops to a negligible level.

Either way, the claim that the columns snapped simultaneously inside .6 seconds is not, in fact, implicit in NIST's claim, since the required conditions for NIST's claim can be satisfied by seriously damaged or weakened columns as well as completely destroyed ones.

All remaining columns buckling over 8 stories and the building only losing two feet is not negligible resistance. It is resistance significant enough to impede the building's acceleration and therefore there could be no free fall.

Implicit in NIST's loony crackpot theory is that such buckling provides no resistance. But they present absolutely no evidence that this could happen or indeed did happen. IOW their theory is faith-based crackpot pseudo-science.

 

[WildCat]

All remaining columns buckling over 8 stories and the building only losing two feet is not negligible resistance. It is resistance significant enough to impede the building's acceleration and therefore there could be no free fall.

Implicit in NIST's loony crackpot theory is that such buckling provides no resistance. But they present absolutely no evidence that this could happen or indeed did happen. IOW their theory is faith-based crackpot pseudo-science.

Wow, you've cracked the case!

When can we look forward to seeing your totally scientific paper about it?

 

[twinstead]

All remaining columns buckling over 8 stories and the building only losing two feet is not negligible resistance. It is resistance significant enough to impede the building's acceleration and therefore there could be no free fall.

Implicit in NIST's loony crackpot theory is that such buckling provides no resistance. But they present absolutely no evidence that this could happen or indeed did happen. IOW their theory is faith-based crackpot pseudo-science.

Lots of people who know what they are talking about disagree. Even I've got no reason to believe you, since you appear to be a tad biased. Garnering support from a respected engineering or scientific organization would go a long way towards convincing me (and by "me" I mean "the world").

Until then I respectfully refuse to believe a word you say. Get used to it, by the way; few people in the Real World believe you either.

 

[dc1971]

Dave you have no idea what I wrote because you obviously haven't even read it. It's almost like trying to communicate with a child banging a pot on his head screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over. None of the posts or videos you presented have anything to do with the important points I made. They are simply a diversion. I am not now presenting the case for CD. I am simply showing how mind-bogglingly insane is the theory that you believe in.

Interesting how you like to describe that other people are doing exactly what you're doing!

 

[dc1971]

faith-based crackpot pseudo-science.

You like using that phrase a lot, don't you??

 

[dc1971]

That means it is faith-based pseudo-science...

Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

 

[dc1971]

...crackpot theory...

Exposing the logical implications of a crackpot theory...

A theory... bla, bla, bla... it is pseudo-science.

A scientist that believes a theory... bla, bla, bla... is practicing pseudo-science.

...pseudo-science bunk... The fact that you believe in pseudo-science theories...

faith-based pseudo-science theory.

Wow! You're going to town, son!

 

[dc1971]

Refusing to support your theory is not science, it's pseudo-science.

Do you realize I laugh every time I see you using the phrase pseudo-science and "faith based" pseudo-science??

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The highlighted problems are not in the NIST report. I never said they were. This is the whole point I'm making. You seem to be trying to argue that if NIST does not present a problem, then the problem doesn't exist. In science, the whole point of peer review is to point out problems researchers missed or deliberately tried to conceal. Glossing over problems is what you see in crackpot pseudo-science not good science. Do you feel no one should be questioning any scientific document? If people point out obvious problems that is building straw men? Give it up.

NIST's 1.75 second figure is highly deceptive since they timed the collapse by observing the middle of the roof which bowed before the corners came down. By measuring the middle of the roof they get an inflated initial pre-freefall period. For this reason their measurements should be discarded and Chandler's more accurate data measuring the corner acceleration should be used instead:

http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

That is where the .6 seconds come from. Do you have any evidence that his work is invalid? If so present it. If you can't refute his work, then deal with the problems I have presented. If you can't tend to these problems you cannot support the theory you believe in. That means it is faith-based pseudo-science not science.

SO, you're admitting that NIST is not the source of what you're calling a crackpot theory.

Thanks for confirming your use of Straw Man.

 

[Horatius]

NIST's 1.75 second figure is highly deceptive since they timed the collapse by observing the middle of the roof which bowed before the corners came down. By measuring the middle of the roof they get an inflated initial pre-freefall period. For this reason their measurements should be discarded and Chandler's more accurate data measuring the corner acceleration should be used instead:

....and what exactly do you suppose was happening to the structure of the building during this more than one second period that the middle part was "bowing"?

 

[grandmastershek]

....and what exactly do you suppose was happening to the structure of the building during this more than one second period that the middle part was "bowing"?

I really love when truthers pull this nonsense. They accuse NIST of dry labbing, but the fact is that they have a predetermined time and ignore all other evidence which contradicts their conclusions. IE- The roof line dissent and the east mechanical penthouse. For some reason we are supposed to ignore these parts of collapse so they can maintain their delusions about collapse times, symmetry, etc. For some reason amongst the mental gymnastics truthers undergo those parts of the building which are collapsing are not part of the building's collapse.

 

[tsig]

The highlighted problems are not in the NIST report. I never said they were. This is the whole point I'm making. You seem to be trying to argue that if NIST does not present a problem, then the problem doesn't exist. In science, the whole point of peer review is to point out problems researchers missed or deliberately tried to conceal. Glossing over problems is what you see in crackpot pseudo-science not good science. Do you feel no one should be questioning any scientific document? If people point out obvious problems that is building straw men? Give it up.

NIST's 1.75 second figure is highly deceptive since they timed the collapse by observing the middle of the roof which bowed before the corners came down. By measuring the middle of the roof they get an inflated initial pre-freefall period. For this reason their measurements should be discarded and Chandler's more accurate data measuring the corner acceleration should be used instead:

http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

That is where the .6 seconds come from. Do you have any evidence that his work is invalid? If so present it. If you can't refute his work, then deal with the problems I have presented. If you can't tend to these problems you cannot support the theory you believe in. That means it is faith-based pseudo-science not science.

Furthermore, there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption, that poured into
the streets following the final collapse of the building

Pyroclastic flows?

 

[cmatrix]

SO, you're admitting that NIST is not the source of what you're calling a crackpot theory.

Thanks for confirming your use of Straw Man.

So there we have it. Mr Thomas believes in a theory without question but completely ignores any problems with it. Instead of addressing the problems he falsely accuses his opponent of creating a straw man argument. Pretending problems don't exist and attacking those that expose these problems is the hallmark of faith-based pseudo-science.

 

[tsig]

Apparently WTC steel had some magical properties. These two images show WTC columns twisted right over without breaking.

[qimg]http://www.american-buddha.com/ae911truth.14c.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ieVH8a7B1Ce18M:http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/911conspiracytv/horseshoe_steel.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

So does everyone admit the NIST WTC 7 theory is complete crackpot pseudo-science bunk? Mr. Thomas don't you worry that believing without question in an easily disproven crackpot pseudo-science theory will damage your reputation?

Regardless of the break, the column bent significantly before it broke. Look above the break. That's bent about as much as the "horseshoe" in the other picture. In WTC 7 this sort of buckling would result in a far greater fall than two measly feet before breaking. Speaking of idiocy, that simple fact should be obvious to anyone who is not an idiot. So despite your furious hand-waving and pathetic misdirection those pictures do indeed support my position.

Sunstealer do you know what lunacy is? Lunacy is the crackpot faith-based theory you believe in without question. Remember, according to the crackpot NIST theory that you support, eight entire stories of supporting structure (including several core columns) of WTC 7 buckled simultaneously over eight stories and fractured simultaneously all in .6 seconds while only falling 2 feet. That's not a progressive collapse. That's a miracle in a faith-based psychotic delusion.

Dave you have no idea what I wrote because you obviously haven't even read it. It's almost like trying to communicate with a child banging a pot on his head screaming "I can't hear you!" over and over. None of the posts or videos you presented have anything to do with the important points I made. They are simply a diversion. I am not now presenting the case for CD. I am simply showing how mind-bogglingly insane is the theory that you believe in.

Your job is to prove how the 8 stories of resisting structure in WTC 7 could have been completely removed in .6 seconds while only falling two feet. This extremely significant problem is not a straw man. It is a direct consequence of the crackpot theory you believe in without question. If it wasn't, you would be able to specifically point out the errors in arriving at this conclusion. You can't do this because it is in fact correct. You also can't in any way explain how the buckling miracle happened in .6 seconds. So you just pronounce that "this debate is over".

Refusing to support your theory is not science, it's pseudo-science. Believing in a theory without question despite having no evidence, no replication and no precedence is not skepticism, it's abject gullibility.

Oh so if NIST doesn't explain a problem you can just ignore it because it doesn't exist? If a scientist supports a theory he has to explain any problems with it. If the theory can't explain serious problems, the theory is complete bunk. There are extremely serious problems with NIST's theory. NIST says WTC 7 had 2.25 s of free fall. They also say the lower columns buckled causing the building to come down. That means buckling removed completely eight stories of structure. The buckling had to be simultaneous over all columns because all four corners came down at the same rate. Since buckled columns all have some resistance not none at all, the columns all had to simultaneously snap. Plus, this all had to happen in the .6 seconds before the free fall period as the building fell two measly feet. You have a different explanation? Are these facts wrong? Then let's hear it. Your hand-waving pronouncements just don't cut it. The fact is that this is the only rational explanation for what could have happened according to this crackpot theory. The only other explanations are laughably irrational. This is why you don't present them, provided you even had one of course.

Exposing the logical implications of a crackpot theory is not building a straw man. I am showing everyone what it is you actually believe in. If I was wrong you could easily point out why I was wrong. On the other hand, claiming someone has committed the straw man fallacy when they haven't _is_ actually committing the straw man fallacy. You have fabricated a position that I don't hold (that I misrepresented your theory) and attack that misrepresentation as a logical fallacy. I can effortlessly analyze your logic problems because they actually exist but you can't do the same for me because there are no logical problems in my argument.

A theory that cannot explain key observations is not a scientific theory, it is pseudo-science. A scientist that believes a theory but refuses to acknowledge problems with it, is practicing pseudo-science. The NIST theory that you support without question is pseudo-science bunk because it does not explain the free fall period. The fact that you believe in pseudo-science theories without question raises serious doubts that you are the skeptic you purport to be. The fact that you disregard scientific evidence that completely refutes your faith-based pseudo-science theory raises serious doubts as to your allegiance to good science.

The highlighted problems are not in the NIST report. I never said they were. This is the whole point I'm making. You seem to be trying to argue that if NIST does not present a problem, then the problem doesn't exist. In science, the whole point of peer review is to point out problems researchers missed or deliberately tried to conceal. Glossing over problems is what you see in crackpot pseudo-science not good science. Do you feel no one should be questioning any scientific document? If people point out obvious problems that is building straw men? Give it up.

NIST's 1.75 second figure is highly deceptive since they timed the collapse by observing the middle of the roof which bowed before the corners came down. By measuring the middle of the roof they get an inflated initial pre-freefall period. For this reason their measurements should be discarded and Chandler's more accurate data measuring the corner acceleration should be used instead:

http://911speakout.org/Freefall.pdf

That is where the .6 seconds come from. Do you have any evidence that his work is invalid? If so present it. If you can't refute his work, then deal with the problems I have presented. If you can't tend to these problems you cannot support the theory you believe in. That means it is faith-based pseudo-science not science.

All remaining columns buckling over 8 stories and the building only losing two feet is not negligible resistance. It is resistance significant enough to impede the building's acceleration and therefore there could be no free fall.

Implicit in NIST's loony crackpot theory is that such buckling provides no resistance. But they present absolutely no evidence that this could happen or indeed did happen. IOW their theory is faith-based crackpot pseudo-science.

So there we have it. Mr Thomas believes in a theory without question but completely ignores any problems with it. Instead of addressing the problems he falsely accuses his opponent of creating a straw man argument. Pretending problems don't exist and attacking those that expose these problems is the hallmark of faith-based pseudo-science.

Your argument seems heavy on insults and light on evidence.

 

[A W Smith]

Your argument seems heavy on insults and light on evidence.

he's projecting his crackpot pseudo-science

 

[twinstead]

So there we have it. Mr Thomas believes in a theory without question but completely ignores any problems with it. Instead of addressing the problems he falsely accuses his opponent of creating a straw man argument. Pretending problems don't exist and attacking those that expose these problems is the hallmark of faith-based pseudo-science.

Chipping away at imagined problems with the prevailing theory in order to discredit it and insert whatever cockamamie theory you can make up, no evidence needed, is the hallmark of faith-based pseudo-science, akin to the God of the Gaps arguments that creationists make.

Perhaps you'd like to present an alternate theory that fits the available evidence, eye witness testimony, and science better than the commonly held theory. We'll then just see what theory has the most "problems"...