Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[GlennB]

"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

All you're doing here is misinterpreting the phrase "no structural components". It doesn't mean they have gone entirely, or have all fallen over onto the floor well out of the way. It just means they are no longer structural. A column broken at a weld and leaning over at 20° is not 'structural' any more.

See NIST NCSTAR1-9A , page 88, pdf page 138, final paragraph.

 

[Disbelief]

So Chris, have you figured out how your imagined perpetrators were able to simultaneously sever multiple columns in multiple locations with thermite or explosives? You do realize that it would be impossible to do this simultaneously, right?

Chris? Can you address this please? Evidence would be nice as well.

 

[pgimeno]

You have STILL not proved that the resistance is zero

Good grief. What part of "no" don't you understand?
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Why are you pushing that as a proof that the resistance was zero?????

It doesn't prove *anything at all* about the actual fall acceleration.

Negligible little bit is one tenth of one percent in this case.

Are you implying that the video resolution provides for a measurement accuracy of 1/1000 g acceleration for the center of gravity of the moving section of the building? Prove your numbers. That's OBVIOUSLY not the case in any of the presented graphs so far, but I'll admit to be shown wrong. Go ahead.

When you're done, prove how the resistance of the buckled columns must have been big enough as to result in more than 1/1000 g acceleration.

Your denying it won't make it untrue.

I am asking for your evidence about its truth, given that NIST's (corrected) statements mean it's untrue.

Since you may already be lost in your own word games, let me remind you that we're talking about your statement that the fall speed was FFA and not FFA minus a negligible bit.

 

[Christopher7]

All you're doing here is misinterpreting the phrase "no structural components".

Utterly false. Dr. Sunder is stating the obvious. Free fall means falling thru air.

It doesn't mean they have gone entirely,

Yes it does

or have all fallen over onto the floor well out of the way. It just means they are no longer structural. A column broken at a weld and leaning over at 20° is not 'structural' any more.

But the exterior columns did not break apart. The moment frames held them together and they buckled.

See NIST NCSTAR1-9A , page 88, pdf page 138, final paragraph.

"The buckling of all the interior columns extended to the exterior columns, resulting in the total loss of column support to the floors above."

This simply isn't so. The exterior frame is holding together and providing resistance as it buckles. They are trying to go back on the true statement made by Dr. Sunder.

 

[Christopher7]

Good grief. What part of "no" don't you understand?
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Why are you pushing that as a proof that the resistance was zero?????

Idiotic question. Free fall acceleration means falling thru air, no [zero] resistance. This is self evident.

Are you implying that the video resolution provides for a measurement accuracy of 1/1000 g acceleration for the center of gravity of the moving section of the building? Prove your numbers. That's OBVIOUSLY not the case in any of the presented graphs so far, but I'll admit to be shown wrong. Go ahead.

I have done that many times but you keep running in your circle of denial tactics.
This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s²(9.81 m/s²), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 m/s²

When you're done, prove how the resistance of the buckled columns must have been big enough as to result in more than 1/1000 g acceleration.

See the graphic in my last post. The moment frames are holding the exterior walls together and they are buckling - providing resistance.
"There was resistance is this case"- Shyam Sunder

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Idiotic question. Free fall acceleration means falling thru air, no [zero] resistance. This is self evident.

I have done that many times but you keep running in your circle of denial tactics.
This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s²(9.81 m/s²), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 m/s²
See the graphic in my last post. The moment frames are holding the exterior walls together and they are buckling - providing resistance.
"There was resistance is this case"- Shyam Sunder

I can tell that you are having a very hard time dealing with the material you are attempting to discuss.

The thing I wonder is, do you know you are having a hard time?

 

[GlennB]

All you're doing here is misinterpreting the phrase "no structural components". It doesn't mean they have gone entirely,

Yes it does

Oh dear. Where did they go?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

C7 knows very little about free fall speed. Free fall speed is achieved at 120 mph, the only problem is that there's air resistance that slows it to 120 mph.

C7 is saying "no resistance", well air is resistant to many objects. In other words, C7 is saying that Earth must have a vaccum to achieve 0 resistance. If that were the case, everything on Earth would wither & die.

C7, it's called graduating high school buddy!

 

[pgimeno]

Why are you pushing that as a proof that the resistance was zero?????

Idiotic question. Free fall acceleration means falling thru air, no [zero] resistance. This is self evident.

I have to agree with SoT here. Where is the logic in that? If your task is to prove that the resistance was zero, merely stating what free fall acceleration is or means is not any kind of proof in any way, and claiming that it's an idiotic question makes your answer look even more idiotic.

I have done that many times but you keep running in your circle of denial tactics.
This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s²(9.81 m/s²), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

The acceleration of gravity for New York City is 9.802 m/s²

Thanks, didn't need that. Now, focus.

Prove that the center of mass of the section of the building that fell did so within 0.1% of g.

I don't need the value of g.

I don't need any other NIST quote stating how is a free fall supposed to behave.

I need a measurement of the center of mass of the falling section of the building, with accuracy within the 0.1% of g that you are claiming.

See the graphic in my last post. The moment frames are holding the exterior walls together and they are buckling - providing resistance.
"There was resistance is this case"- Shyam Sunder

But you said previously...

It is nowhere close. The computer model does not include the described horizontal collapse and it does not look like the videos and it does not fall at FFA.

I agree with you in that that model doesn't describe what happened with enough accuracy. Therefore that graphic doesn't prove what you claim you prove, and your bringing it up is a very hypocritical move.

Re Sunder, can you source that quote? You are not bringing up yet another pre-final version quote deliberately out of context, are you?

 

[GlennB]

Free fall speed is achieved at 120 mph, the only problem is that there's air resistance that slows it to 120 mph.

Sorry Chewy, but that's not quite right.

Free fall in air depends on a number of things. Mass, profile, coefficient of friction of the material's surface ..... a ping-pong ball full of lead will fall faster than an empty one. A crumpled ball of A4 paper will fall faster than an open sheet. etc.

 

[bill smith]

'' On September 9, 2010 AE911Truth will hold a major press conference and debate at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Join them in the early afternoon in DC for these events.''

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-...uth-washington-dc-press-conference-and-debate

Did Dave Thomas say that he is going to participate in this one or is he declining ?

 

[beachnut]

'' On September 9, 2010 AE911Truth will hold a major press conference and debate at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Join them in the early afternoon in DC for these events.''

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-...uth-washington-dc-press-conference-and-debate

Did Dave Thomas say that he is going to participate in this one or is he declining ?

911blogger. What a cesspool of junk. This must mean AE911Truth is spreading more delusions on September 9th, another wasted day apologizing for terrorists.

Wow, it is an action alert. After 8 years of "action" why has 911 truth not got past the idiotic failed conclusion stage? Action?

ACTION ALERT? Gage is taking action! - should read, IDIOT ALERT, or DELUSION ALERT.

The sad part on Gage's collecting money; the more money he collects means there are more who can't think for themselves. The good news, those numbers are so small it is insignificant except for Gage, who spends the money to travel and live.

Lucky national news has no interest in paranoid nut case conspiracy theories spread by a fraud, or a nut case who can't figure out 911.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

'' On September 9, 2010 AE911Truth will hold a major press conference and debate at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Join them in the early afternoon in DC for these events.''

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-...uth-washington-dc-press-conference-and-debate

Did Dave Thomas say that he is going to participate in this one or is he declining ?

It's been a while, but I mentioned I was not participating way in this media circus waaaaaaaay back in the OP.

 

[bill smith]

It's been a while, but I mentioned I was not participating way in this media circus waaaaaaaay back in the OP.

Yes I remember that we talked about it. I think I was advising you not to participate in case the coast-to-coast show did not go well or something like that.

 

[bill smith]

Dave your friend Kim said that there were over 370 dogs on site that were cross-trained to find presumably people as well as explosives. Then he said that only six of these dogs were on full time duty at the WTC. This was about 12 minutes into the third hour of the show.

Is that an accurate statement that he made about the dogs or was it an error of some kind ?

 

[Christopher7]

C7 knows very little about free fall speed. Free fall speed is achieved at 120 mph, the only problem is that there's air resistance that slows it to 120 mph.

An object weighing thousands of tons is not affected by wind resistance in the first 100 feet as is evidenced by the consistent FFA.

C7 is saying "no resistance", well air is resistant to many objects.

Skydivers yes but 30 story buildings no.

In other words, C7 is saying that Earth must have a vaccum to achieve 0 resistance.

Idiotic assumption

If that were the case, everything on Earth would wither & die.

C7, it's called graduating high school buddy!

Speak for yourself.
vacum > vacume

 

[beachnut]

An object weighing thousands of tons is not affected by wind resistance in the first 100 feet as is evidenced by the consistent FFA.

Skydivers yes but 30 story buildings no.

Idiotic assumption

Speak for yourself.
vacum > vacume

You agree massive objects are not affected much by air. Low mass, like dust is affected a lot, heavy masses are not affected as much.

Are you gaining knowledge in physics? This could be the beginning of the end of your CD delusions on 911.

 

[bill smith]

Dave...

Neils Harrit at around 23 minutes into the third hour said that about 400 high-rise steel framed buildings around the world have had fires and yet not one of them have ever collapsed. Then he made the strong point that this amounts to absolute and repeated experimantal proof that this type of building does not collapse from fire.

But Kim already had said that he had fully expected WTC7 to fall as he observed it on 9/11. Narrit expressed his doubts about that.


Then- interestingly Kim responds about a building that had burned in Madrid at which Harrit interjects and says 'The Windspr Tower ?' Kim replies 'No,no, it's not the Windsor Tower..it's another one called... I don't have it written down here...Dave may remember it...'

Was Kim just not up to speed or was he really referring to another building in Spain ?

 

[tsig]

But the video with debris damage does not. Your literally blind faith in what this government report says is absolute, even when your eyes can see that the words and the video do not match.

Chris, the videos I have seen look exactly like a damage/fire induced, gravity driven collapse.

 

[tsig]

Point taken. Y'all should follow that advise and stop calling people liars when they make a mistake.

Good grief. What part of "no" don't you understand?
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

Negligible little bit is one tenth of one percent in this case. Clearly, too small to be considered. i.e. effectively zero

Your denying it won't make it untrue.

It is nowhere close. The computer model does not include the described horizontal collapse and it does not look like the videos and it does not fall at FFA. But what the heck, that's close enough for government work, right?

So "looks like" is all you got?