• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Open Letter to Dave Thomas


Would you and Dave Thomas care to comment on the physics in the article above or are ham-fisted attempts at character assassination all you can muster?

That article clearly shows that the theory you support is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science. If it's not, you should be able to rationally explain why. When you two accept that you were in fact wrong to support the loony NIST theory I can present my scientific theory of the WTC 7 collapse.
 
Ah, cmatrix.

Are you the chap who reckoned the energy released by the falling building would have to be applied to the building in order to make it collapse? Or was that a different chap?
If so, my apologies.
 
When you two accept that you were in fact wrong to support the loony NIST theory I can present my scientific theory of the WTC 7 collapse.

So you want us to accept that you're right before you explain why you're right?

How about no.

Will you be the first truther to present a coherent theory?
 
Would you and Dave Thomas care to comment on the physics in the article above or are ham-fisted attempts at character assassination all you can muster?

That article clearly shows that the theory you support is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science. If it's not, you should be able to rationally explain why. When you two accept that you were in fact wrong to support the loony NIST theory I can present my scientific theory of the WTC 7 collapse.
http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fu...11-theory-violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#v­iew You need to read your web site before you spew crackpot.
Your theory is delusional, you refute your own story as you make up nonsense.

WTC 7 was a 47 story building about the width and length of a football field.[2] WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and yet fell down at near free fall. In fact high school physics teacher David Chandler forced NIST The National Institute of Standards and Technology to admit that for a period of at least 2.25 seconds WTC 7 was in free fall http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fu...11-theory-violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#v­iew
With a collapse over 15 seconds, you state it was near free-fall, and then only 2.25 seconds near free-fall.

Which is it? You said WTC7 fell down at near free falls speed, yet the collapse was more than twice free-fall speed.
 
... ham-fisted attempts at character assassination all you can muster?

... the theory you support is crackpot faith-based pseudo-science. ...

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. There is no more gravitational potential energy available to break up structure as would be required in NIST's crackpot progressive collapse theory.

When will you publish this special theory of nonsense physics?
 
Awesome, cmatrix! :D

Sums up the bee dunker thesis to a T.

You forgot the shirt with all the pens in it, though. (And the real doll in the background) ;)
 
Surfing around idly, I stumbled on this YouTube, apparently by our very own cmatrix, that explains a lot about his credibility, engineering knowledge, rapier wit, that sort of thing.

View, and be Amazed.

"Jay Reftard Debunks 9/11 Truthers"

​

If this really is cmatrix, well then ... :rolleyes:

Well, isn't that... special.

It's become a bit more obvious why cmatrix is a twoofer.
 
When will you publish this special theory of nonsense physics?
Waiddaminit!
What did I miss here?
Is he truly saying that a 1300 foot high object that moved downwards 500 feet is no longer 800 feet from the ground?
because that is what
With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. There is no more gravitational potential energy available...
means
 
http://knol.google.com/k/michael-fu...11-theory-violates-the/1hwr2894wxokh/10#v­iew You need to read your web site before you spew crackpot.
Your theory is delusional, you refute your own story as you make up nonsense.

With a collapse over 15 seconds, you state it was near free-fall, and then only 2.25 seconds near free-fall.

Which is it? You said WTC7 fell down at near free falls speed, yet the collapse was more than twice free-fall speed.

I think you may mean half. Unless there's some allegations of rocket engines on the roof that I'm not aware of.
 
I think you may mean half. Unless there's some allegations of rocket engines on the roof that I'm not aware of.
Took over twice as long as an object in free-fall from the same height. I was baby sitting my grandkids, or the post would have been worse... or better?

Darn, sorry about the speed thing.
 
[crickets chirping]

Hello?...Tom?...Dave Thomas?...Ryan Mackey?

Would either one of you care to explain why you support a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics?
It doesn't violate any laws, Your thinking* does.


* a relative term that does not pertain to your "theory".
 
Last edited:
[crickets chirping]

Hello?...Tom?...Dave Thomas?...Ryan Mackey?

Would either one of you care to explain why you support a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics?

Nothing can violate the laws of physics! That's just some made up BS from a bunch of retards who flunked school & haven't got a damn clue about what the Laws of Physics is about.

Ever heard of violating personal space?
 
Last edited:
Physics for Truthers, I mean Dummies!

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/physics-understanding-newtons-first-law-of-motion.html

Physics: Understanding Newton's First Law of Motion
By Steve Holzner, Ph.D.

Drum roll, please. Newton's laws explain what happens with forces and motion, and his first law states: "An object continues in a state of rest, or in a state of motion at a constant speed along a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by a net force." What's the translation? If you don't apply a force to an object at rest or in motion, it will stay at rest or in that same motion along a straight line. Forever.

For example, when scoring a hockey goal, the hockey puck slides toward the open goal in a straight line because the ice it slides on is nearly frictionless. If you're lucky, the puck won't come into contact with the opposing goalie's stick, which would cause it to change its motion.

In everyday life, objects don't coast around effortlessly on ice. Most objects around you are subject to friction, so when you slide a coffee mug across your desk, it glides for a moment and then slows and comes to a stop (or spills over — don't try this one at home). That's not to say Newton's first law is invalid, just that friction provides a force to change the mug's motion to stop it.

What Newton's first law really says is that the only way to get something to change its motion is to use force. In other words, force is the cause of motion. It also says that an object in motion tends to stay in motion, which introduces the idea of inertia.

Getting it going: Inertia and mass
Inertia is the natural tendency of an object to stay at rest or in constant motion along a straight line. Inertia is a quality of mass, and the mass of an object is really just a measurement of its inertia. To get an object to move — that is, to change its current state of motion — you have to apply a force to overcome its inertia.

Say, for example, you're at your summer vacation house, taking a look at the two boats at your dock: a dinghy and an oil tanker. If you apply the same force to each with your foot, the boats respond in different ways. The dinghy scoots away and glides across the water. The oil tanker moves away more slowly (What a strong leg you have!). That's because each one has different masses and, therefore, different amounts of inertia. When responding to the same force, an object with little mass — and a small amount of inertia — will accelerate faster than an object with large mass, which has a large amount of inertia.

Inertia, the tendency of mass to preserve its present state of motion, can be a problem at times. Refrigerated meat trucks, for example, have large amounts of frozen meat hanging from their ceilings, and when the drivers of the trucks begin turning corners, they create a pendulum motion that they can't stop from the driver's seat. Trucks with inexperienced drivers can end up tipping over because of the inertia of the swinging frozen load in the back.

Because mass has inertia, it resists changing its motion, which is why you have to start applying forces to get velocity and acceleration. Mass ties force and acceleration together.

Measuring mass
The units of mass (and, therefore, inertia) depend on your measuring system. In the meter-kilogram-second (MKS) system or International System of Units (SI), mass is measured in kilograms (under the influence of gravity, a kilogram of mass weighs about 2.205 pounds). In the centimeter-gram-second (CGS) system, the gram is featured, and it takes a thousand grams to make a kilogram.

What's the unit of mass in the foot-pound-second system? Brace yourself: It's the slug. Under the influence of gravity, a slug has a weight of about 32 pounds. It's equal in mass to 14.59 kilograms.

Mass isn't the same as weight. Mass is a measure of inertia; when you put that mass into a gravitational field, you get weight. So, for example, a slug is a certain amount of mass. When you subject that slug to the gravitational pull on the surface of the earth, it has weight. And that weight is about 32 pounds.
 
[crickets chirping]

Hello?...Tom?...Dave Thomas?...Ryan Mackey?

Would either one of you care to explain why you support a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics?

Haven't we been through this before? Since the "crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics" is simply your own STRAW MAN, I see no need to address it.
 
[crickets chirping]

Hello?...Tom?...Dave Thomas?...Ryan Mackey?

Would either one of you care to explain why you support a crackpot completely unscientific faith-based theory that violates the laws of physics?
No body supports your work; that is why they have not posted. You have a special version of moronic physics you view the world with which makes you rant about reality based work. You have no clue what kinetic energy is, or how gravity works. You made up nonsense and your avatar is perfect for the world you live in.

I enjoy your failure to understand physics, and envy your ignorance. You have much to discover, an exciting adventure to discover reality and normal, not fantasy physics; good luck. You have to doing a parody on 911 truth; no one is as bad in physics, except Balsamo over at pilots who make up nonsense on 911. You should sign up at pilots for truth, Balsamo needs another physics expert, and you are the best candidate. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/ they need you sign up soon.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom