Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

The data points fall on both sides of the FFA line. That is because the data points are taken from a video. They used many data points and took the average to get the actual acceleration. The sophistry used to claim faster than free fall is idiotic.

It's too bad the data (yours and ours) does not support this fantasy.

If you think these graphics are a fantasy you are on the wrong side of the looking glass.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

When a structure weighing a thousand tons sitting on top of a building suddenly falls down into that building, that means something inside the main body of that building has gone seriously wrong.

Do you understand the significance of this, Tony? The collapse of the EMP was due to failures inside the main body of WTC7. That ~IS~ the start of the collapse sequence.

Your whining, bitching and prattling is every bit as transparently dishonest as Christopher7s. You know damn well it was 16 seconds, you are flat out lying (in complete violation of any sort of professional ethics, I might add) about the Penthouse collapse because you can't handle it and you don't want your audience knowing about it.

The 9/11 truth movement doesn't want people knowing the whole truth.

Are you actually making the claim that the east penthouse of WTC 7 weighed 1,000 tons? I hope you aren't because there isn't a chance its structure weighed anything close to 2 million lbs..

 

[Christopher7]

You are wong,

Dave,

You still did not respond to this:

"As it turns out, it fell at FFA [free fall acceleration] for ~100 feet. As a physicist you should understand the significance. For a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed. Bending columns provide resistance and prohibit FFA."

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed?

Do you understand that 150+ columns bending provide resistance and prevent FFA?

Do you understand what Dr. Sunder is saying here:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

 

[beachnut]

Dave,

...Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed?

Do you understand that 150+ columns bending provide resistance and prevent FFA?

Do you understand what Dr. Sunder is saying here:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

It means the interior collapsed as the facade was falling. Did you miss the penthouse fell through the WTC7 before the facade fell? Are you a structural engineer? Are you an engineer? Why are you qualified to comment or make conclusions on structures you did not design, you did not build, and have not had training or education to understand?

What was the total collapse time? Including the penthouse falling into the interior.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you actually making the claim that the east penthouse of WTC 7 weighed 1,000 tons?

You're the one making the claim that it wasn't actually part of the building.

There's little I could say that would match your level of crazy (or blatant dishonesty).

How do you explain the failures that occurred a dozen floors below the EMP inside WTC7 if they weren't part of thr collapse sequence?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave,

You still did not respond to this:

"As it turns out, it fell at FFA [free fall acceleration] for ~100 feet. As a physicist you should understand the significance. For a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed. Bending columns provide resistance and prohibit FFA."

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed?

Do you understand that 150+ columns bending provide resistance and prevent FFA?

Do you understand what Dr. Sunder is saying here:
[FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/FONT]

I have responded to this. I don't need to babysit you. You are not the boss of me. You haven't agreed with what I've said, nor with any of the other reasonable explanations people have been posting. That's no skin off my back - it's a free country. Conversely, I'm under no obligation to keep trying to convey explanations. Apparently, these might as well be in Swahili or Tlingit.

For the record, I've already said

The collapse did take several seconds - at least 16 seconds. As Dr. Sunder said, "Everything was not instantaneous."

The collapse proceeded not only vertically, but horizontally as well. The supporting columns you cite were most likely pulled down collaterally, in time to pull the rug from under the visible facade for a couple of seconds, out of 16 at least. For a brief moment, a part of WTC7 wasn't supported as it collapsed. This in no way proves controlled demolition, sorry.

That's all your demands for a response are going to get. I'm busy, needing to finish a writeup of the big debate for the blogs, prep for the class I'm teaching, finish a big software project, etc. Those are all way more important than continually trying to respond to an obstinate truther who made the mistakes of (a) thinking I'd fall for the "free-fall acceleration/no resistance" gambit, then (b) trying to weasel out of it.

You are simply not worth the time. You might be getting cheers from fellow truther travelers, but your inability to convince anyone else is a massive FAIL. Go ahead, continue posting 15 comments per page. No one believes you.

Oh, yeah. Mandy Patinkin called. He wants his avatar back.

 

[GlennB]

All 158 interior and exterior columns breaking at the same instant?

None of them has to break necessarily. Bolts and welds may be the first thing to go. And with column failure mostly on one side initially there will be a tendency to tilt.

I'm not at all sure why you're even looking for instantaneous failure of every column ??

 

[Christopher7]

"As it turns out, it fell at FFA [free fall acceleration] for ~100 feet. As a physicist you should understand the significance. For a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed. Bending columns provide resistance and prohibit FFA."

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA, all the supporting structure must be removed?

Do you understand that 150+ columns bending provide resistance and prevent FFA?

Do you understand what Dr. Sunder is saying here:
[FONT="][SIZE=3]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote].
[QUOTE="DaveThomasNMSR, post: 6274113, member: 39130"]I have responded to this.
For the record, I've already said

The collapse did take several seconds - at least 16 seconds. As Dr. Sunder said, "Everything was not instantaneous."

The collapse proceeded not only vertically, but horizontally as well. The supporting columns you cite were most likely pulled down collaterally, in time to pull the rug from under the visible facade for a couple of seconds, out of 16 at least. For a brief moment, a part of WTC7 wasn't supported as it collapsed. This in no way proves controlled demolition, sorry.

You talked about the 16 seconds of the overall collapse sequence and gave your opinion but that did not answer the question.

I will respond to this and restate the question.

You suggest that the interior collapse "pulled the rug out from under" the north face and left it unsupported. That did not happen. The exterior walls were held together with moment frames and buckled in various directions, providing resistance well into the time of the FFA.

* * * * * * * * * *
Dr. Sunder was talking about the 40% greater than free fall* portion of the collapse sequence that occurs after the 8 second internal collapse. He said an object in free fall has NO structural components below it. This is self evident but it's helpful to have his statement to that effect.
*later corrected to FFA

Your theory has the top section falling at FFA for 12.5 feet and getting up to 19mph, but that is impossible as it requires instantaneous free fall acceleration of the upper section.

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA as you propose, all the supporting structure must be removed simultaneously?

ETA: Re read your response.
"(a) thinking I'd fall for the "free-fall acceleration/no resistance" gambit"

This does answer the question, you think free fall acceleration can occur while structural steel is in the process of bending and breaking. In this case, ~120 perimeter columns and 38 core columns.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You're the one making the claim that it wasn't actually part of the building.

There's little I could say that would match your level of crazy (or blatant dishonesty).

How do you explain the failures that occurred a dozen floors below the EMP inside WTC7 if they weren't part of thr collapse sequence?

What evidence is there of failures occurring a dozen floors below the east penthouse? In the videos I only see light through windows one floor below the roofline of the main building.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm busy, needing to finish a writeup of the big debate for the blogs, prep for the class I'm teaching, finish a big software project, etc.

Dave, it sounds to me like you are a part-time professor at New Mexico Tech and are presently teaching one class there. Is that true? If so, what else do you do for a living?

 

[GlennB]

What evidence is there of failures occurring a dozen floors below the east penthouse? In the videos I only see light through windows one floor below the roofline of the main building.

You can't possibly be serious?

Try here and scroll to 4:20. And elsewhere in the same compilation. This is all well known stuff.

In addition we could ask ourselves why the E.P would fall unless structural failure had occured below it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You can't possibly be serious?

Try here and scroll to 4:20. And elsewhere in the same compilation. This is all well known stuff.

In addition we could ask ourselves why the E.P would fall unless structural failure had occured below it.

If you are talking about the window blowouts at 4:20 further down the east side, on the north face of the building, they don't prove natural or unnatural collapse. NIST claims the collapse started at the 12th and 13th floor on the east side so why don't we see a progression upward from there? It seems like all the action is up top here, directed towards the east penthouse.

There are many demolition situations on record where light rooftop structures are removed just prior to the main demolition.

 

[Christopher7]

Dave, it sounds to me like you are a part-time professor at New Mexico Tech and are presently teaching one class there. Is that true? If so, what else do you do for a living?

Oops, responded to wrong post
Here's a better version: [best to turn sound down and view full screen - best @ 1:50]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg&feature=related

 

[GlennB]

What evidence is there of failures occurring a dozen floors below the east penthouse? In the videos I only see light through windows one floor below the roofline of the main building.

If you are talking about the window blowouts at 4:20 further down the east side, on the north face of the building, they don't prove natural or unnatural collapse.

No comment required really.

 

[BigAl]

Oops, responded to wrong post
Here's a better version: [best to turn sound down and view full screen - best @ 1:50]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg&feature=related

What is the point of that video? There is no loud noise and there is no "shockwave" visible.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony, I don't know how many times I have told you this: the vérinage demolitions are applied to buildings with parallel load-bearing walls, yet you keep talking about the column-to-column impacts.

Anybody who has read Bazant's paper and understands it already knows what a limiting case model is. I fail to see how anyone could this hard a time with it but Tony has his own version of what a limiting case is apparently... he bases every one of his claims thus far in this thread on that unique interpretation.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Wtc 7 is not wtc 1

.
You talked about the 16 seconds of the overall collapse sequence and gave your opinion but that did not answer the question.

I will respond to this and restate the question.

You suggest that the interior collapse "pulled the rug out from under" the north face and left it unsupported. That did not happen. The exterior walls were held together with moment frames and buckled in various directions, providing resistance well into the time of the FFA.

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img830/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg[/qimg]

* * * * * * * * * *
Dr. Sunder was talking about the 40% greater than free fall* portion of the collapse sequence that occurs after the 8 second internal collapse. He said an object in free fall has NO structural components below it. This is self evident but it's helpful to have his statement to that effect.
*later corrected to FFA

Your theory has the top section falling at FFA for 12.5 feet and getting up to 19mph, but that is impossible as it requires instantaneous free fall acceleration of the upper section.

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA as you propose, all the supporting structure must be removed simultaneously?

ETA: Re read your response.
"(a) thinking I'd fall for the "free-fall acceleration/no resistance" gambit"

This does answer the question, you think free fall acceleration can occur while structural steel is in the process of bending and breaking. In this case, ~120 perimeter columns and 38 core columns.

You are mixing apples and oranges, and confusing WTC7 with WTC1. They are different. The discussion about "2 seconds of freefall" applies ONLY to WTC7, as is obvious from the many images you've posted of WTC7 models & velocities. I've said in this regard "For a brief moment, a part of WTC7 wasn't supported as it collapsed. This in no way proves controlled demolition, sorry."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT


You gave suddenly changed topics. Bait and Switch, anyone? When you say

Your theory has the top section falling at FFA for 12.5 feet and getting up to 19mph, but that is impossible as it requires instantaneous free fall acceleration of the upper section.

Do you understand that in order for a building to fall at FFA as you propose, all the supporting structure must be removed simultaneously?

you are clearly referring to WORLD TRADE CENTER 1 OR 2, THE "TWIN TOWERS."

As I've explained in three articles on the Impacts, the Momentum and fall time, and Chandler's incredible Error, the towers were mostly air. Once the collapse had initiated, perimeter walls were being bypassed, and peeled off to the outside. (Lots of videos show this clearly, and look at the debris pile). The central core was bypassed as well, leaving these to totter for a few seconds before also collapsing: THE SPIRES. That leaves mostly air, as shown here.

So, yes, I think it's fair to consider the upper section as essentially free-falling between impacts, and decelerated by collisions with floors, as discussed here.

I have physical evidence supporting this hypothesis: Chandler's Measurements.

A busy weekend looms. Ciao!

 

[carlitos]

Dave, it sounds to me like you are a part-time professor at New Mexico Tech and are presently teaching one class there. Is that true? If so, what else do you do for a living?

Tony,
This is a pattern for you, and it's damn creepy. I just thought that you should know how bad these requests for personal details look on a message board like this. Dave's arguments stand on their own merits, just like yours. I'd advise you to stop this.
c

 

[beachnut]

...It's the end of the road for 9/11 debunking. Dave Thomas has discovered that it's not so easy to sound like you actually believe what you're saying while you're lying through your teeth on a live radio show. The debunkers are sorely missing the tour guide. He has a rare talent for it. He can even do it on TV.

With 8 years of delusions from 911 truth, the end was the beginning. You have no evidence or rational conclusions.

Gage spoke lies only fringe dolts would believe; he is self debunking for most rational people. Gage is in it for the money, no one can be that stupid.

Gage can't prove or supply evidence to support a single delusion he has on 911. This is why they are delusions. No one can support 911 truth and prove anything they say is true. The end of 911 truth was 911.

It takes minutes to figure out 911; given the answers and 8 years Gage decided to tell lies and fool those who are too challenged to figure out 911 given 8 years and the answers. Must be a research problem, and gullibility.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,
This is a pattern for you, and it's damn creepy. I just thought that you should know how bad these requests for personal details look on a message board like this. Dave's arguments stand on their own merits, just like yours. I'd advise you to stop this.
c

Sorry Carlitos, but it is generally considered important to know someone's background when they inject themselves into a controversy.

What is truly creepy are the numbers of anonymous people involved in the debate on this issue.

My background is known and if I can't agree with those who support the present official story at least I can respect them as human beings if they are transparent with their identities and backgrounds.