Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Edx]

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.

Except as you well know the buildings he is referring to are concrete reinforced structures and some even have concrete cores like the Windsor tower where the steel fail.

 

[BigAl]

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.

And you've been told why experience with other buildings is irrelevant for the purposes of understanding why WTC1, 2, and 7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 countless times.

Someone should tell Harrit.

 

[Christopher7]

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

It most certainly is. You are in denial.

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.

You don't even know what you need. No wonder you are completely confused.

The north face fell at FFA. It was connected to the rest of the building.
[FONT=&quot]
"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed[/FONT]"

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.

Like I said, not even close.

Therefore that graphic doesn't prove what you claim you prove

Wrong

"There was resistance is this case"- Shyam Sunder

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

It is not taken out of context. It is a statement he made when denying that WTC 7 fell at FFA. I have posted the whole section on this thread.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

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 ?

There are two time periods. Before 9/11, there were six dogs on duty at the WTC all the time. These would have certainly alerted on the NWO bringing in tons of thermitic material (an incendiary, y'know).

The 370 dogs were brought in AFTER the attacks, to help find survivors. Being cross-trained, these dogs would also have alerted on incendiaries like thermite.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

There are two time periods. Before 9/11, there were six dogs on duty at the WTC all the time. These would have certainly alerted on the NWO bringing in tons of thermitic material (an incendiary, y'know).

The 370 dogs were brought in AFTER the attacks, to help find survivors. Being cross-trained, these dogs would also have alerted on incendiaries like thermite.

Dave

I see..thanks.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

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 ?

Kim meant the Windsor Tower in Madrid. It was Harrit who really confused things, however, when he "corrected" Kim to say that the concrete framework collapsed, not the steel framework. This is, of course, bass-ackwards. From this article on Windsor Madrid:

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.

The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was €72m before the renovation.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I see..thanks.

You should check out the report on the dogs from their trainer.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

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

You prefer a circus where the "moderator" is totally on your side.

The C2C "debate" was not a debate, but rather an orchestrated obfuscation of the facts. Among the many false statements made was this:
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."
That is incorrect.
If the structure under the upper portion of the north face had "collapsed already", then the top part would have "collapsed already". It could not hang there waiting for 7 to 8 floors of structure to fall out of the way so it could fall at FFA.

The upper portion of the north face moved down ~3 feet at the corner and ~7 feet near the center of the roof line as the exterior columns buckled. There was a slight pause and then both points went instantly into FFA. That means all the supporting structure was removed simultaneously. As a physicist, you should know that. If you don't, perhaps it's because you do not know what a moment frame is or how they would have prevented the instantaneous FFA observed and measured.

 

[Disbelief]

The upper portion of the north face moved down ~3 feet at the corner and ~7 feet near the center of the roof line as the exterior columns buckled. There was a slight pause and then both points went instantly into FFA. That means all the supporting structure was removed simultaneously. As a physicist, you should know that. If you don't, perhaps it's because you do not know what a moment frame is or how they prevented the instantaneous FFA observed and measured.

Then demonstrate that thermite or explosives can be set up on multiple columns in multiple locations and work simultaneously. Of course, this is as impossible as you showing a CD that attains FFA.

 

[pgimeno]

It most certainly is. You are in denial.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You don't even know what you need. No wonder you are completely confused.

The north face fell at FFA. It was connected to the rest of the building.

"The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed

The highlighted part is what you need to prove. Specifically, you need to prove that there is not even a negligible deviation from FFA.

When you prove that, you have to prove the same for the center of mass, because physics allow for some parts of an object out of its center of mass to fall with an acceleration greater than free fall even if the center of mass is falling with a lower acceleration, with no need to apply external energy.

But to start with, prove that the north wall fell at FFA without even a negligible resistance.

Wrong

Great argument.

It is not taken out of context. It is a statement he made when denying that WTC 7 fell at FFA. I have posted the whole section on this thread.

It is quite dishonest to quote a sentence related to a mistake which has been corrected as if it was not. The missing context is that that sentence was related to a mistake that was corrected later. And you were even misquoting.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I like C7 for giving me the time to appreciate laughter, same goes for anyone else.who thinks he's given you laughs.

I like it when he compares a sparkler to C-4 explosives, saying that thermite is "explosive" when in it's natural form. If that were true, why aren't cars blowing up as they go down the road? Why didn't the Hindenberg blow up before it took off?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in bold:

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

Wind does resist heavy objects, Newtons Law dude!

Skydivers yes but 30 story buildings no.

You have no idea of what terminal velocity is, don't you?

Idiotic assumption

And you assume too much, don't you? So who's the idiot?

Speak for yourself.
vacum > vacume

I am, too bad you can't do the same!

 

[bill smith]

If Dave Thomas shows up again he might be interested in the mention he gets in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gosNsfYXjO0&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

If Dave Thomas shows up again he might be interested in the mention he gets in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gosNsfYXjO0&feature=player_embedded#!

Thanks, Bill!

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks, Bill!

Dave,

Will you acknowledge that your reason for FFA is incorrect please?

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."
That is incorrect.
If the structure under the upper portion of the north face had "collapsed already", then the upper portion would have "collapsed already" too. It could not hang there waiting for 7 to 8 floors of structure to fall out of the way so it could fall at FFA.

 

[triforcharity]

Dave,

Will you acknowledge that your reason for FFA is incorrect please?

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."
That is incorrect.
If the structure under the upper portion of the north face had "collapsed already", then the upper portion would have "collapsed already" too. It could not hang there waiting for 7 to 8 floors of structure to fall out of the way so it could fall at FFA.

Wait, YOU'RE asking for a correction? Where the **** do you get off asking that? You have been shown to be wrong time and time again, and never back down. This thread is the perfect example.

You're arguing with a guy who is a physicist, about physics, and you think HE is wrong?

My God, you might not be very well educated, but you have some bullocks.

Too bad.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave,

Will you acknowledge that your reason for FFA is incorrect please?

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."
That is incorrect.
If the structure under the upper portion of the north face had "collapsed already", then the upper portion would have "collapsed already" too. It could not hang there waiting for 7 to 8 floors of structure to fall out of the way so it could fall at FFA.

I and many others have tried to answer this question, but it's never to your satisfaction. You're just going to keep asking until you get the answer you want, right? This could get old. And that's why I don't expend a lot of effort trying to answer your posts. Not much point in debating an answering machine that keeps saying the same thing over, and over, and over...

 

[uke2se]

Chris, if FFA = CD then why do no other CDs cause FFA?

 

[Christopher7]

I and many others have tried to answer this question, but it's never to your satisfaction. You're just going to keep asking until you get the answer you want, right? This could get old. And that's why I don't expend a lot of effort trying to answer your posts. Not much point in debating an answering machine that keeps saying the same thing over, and over, and over...

That was a non-answer.

Your claim that "the part of the building underneath had collapsed already" is false. You have no valid explanation for the FFA other than explosives.

 

[uke2se]

Chris, if FFA = CD then why do no other CDs cause FFA?

Chris? It would be nice to have an answer given your latest post.