Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[david.watts]

Not trying to play with words, not a game, just trying to be precise.

So you understand what I am saying and you don't understand why truthers don't. I think its because they don't want to. The mystery of conspiracy is more appealing to them than the mystery of science.

That's why only 0.02% of engineers have signed the petition because the majority are interested and understand the basic science, even the complex science.

Sorry you couldn't find the chimney, suggest that you try harder if you want to find the truth.

Sorry. I am not playing with words to make it a game. By restating what you said from a different angle, I was equating "almost zero effective resistance" with "almost total ineffective resistance." Either way, you are talking about at least some resistance.

As to what "truthers" and "non-truthers" believe: I believe -- I have seen/heard this type of remark many times -- that a very large percentage of "truthers," me included, were very uncomfortable (e.g., sick to their stomachs) when it slapped them in the face that what they have been told bears no resemblance to what they now understand. When our minds conclude that the official story ain't all its cracked up to be and that leads to ghastly implications, we are faced with but one choice: either accept it or, if possible, ignore it. What I am saying is no, its not that we "don't want to" understand, its that now we do understand; of course most/all of you on this thread understand it differently. It is not easy to deal with the upsetting of our apple cart of beliefs in the way the world works; in what we have been told/taught all of our lives. In sum, we ("truthers") want to believe what our minds tell us. For example, I wouldn't "want" to believe in something because it is more "appealing" but doesn't make sense. From my perspective, if I did, my mind would be, well, screwed up: and that is not appealing.



If you would, could you point me somewhere regarding the chimney. Thanks

 

[GlennB]

...
What I am saying is no, its not that we "don't want to" understand, its that now we do understand;
...

So, what is it that you do understand? You can be explicit.

 

[david.watts]

Another clarification is in order: Is there another driving force present, such as the building interior collapsing first and applying compressive pressure to the outside? That would have a bearing on whether the resistive force at the bottom was zero, or just counterbalanced.

Also, if the interior is collapsing first, is that collapse uniformly distributed?

One more question: does the building have to have a moment frame construction?

In my hypothetical collapse of generic building 'x,' there is no force other than gravity.

The interior does not collapse first.

My restated scenario (#414):
And the basic premise being that if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

The question the is do you agree or disagree?

LSSBB: Does your answer depend on whether or not building 'x' has a "moment frame construction?

My building 'x' has no particular kind of construction.

 

[david.watts]

To Beachnut

Beachnut, I have a 747 type rating.

As to all of the stuff you have presented from my postings five years ago, I choose to not get into those; at least not now. I am trying to keep everyone here on the same route and not straying off course. If we start flying in different directions or flying different approaches, it will only lead to vertigo from the wake turbulence created for anyone trying to follow along. It would be kind of like flying an ILS with the glideslope or localizer out of service.

 

[Reactor drone]

As to what "truthers" and "non-truthers" believe: I believe -- I have seen/heard this type of remark many times -- that a very large percentage of "truthers," me included, were very uncomfortable (e.g., sick to their stomachs) when it slapped them in the face that what they have been told bears no resemblance to what they now understand.

Do you realise that it's your understanding that is at fault? It's not that you've been slapped in the face by falsehoods it's that you're misunderstanding facts and believing them to be lies.

 

[beachnut]

Beachnut, I have a 747 type rating.

As to all of the stuff you have presented from my postings five years ago, I choose to not get into those; at least not now. I am trying to keep everyone here on the same route and not straying off course. If we start flying in different directions or flying different approaches, it will only lead to vertigo from the wake turbulence created for anyone trying to follow along. It would be kind of like flying an ILS with the glideslope or localizer out of service.

That is 911 truth, out of service.

I was pointing out 911 truth is not able to fight the lies of 911 truth, illusions, because 911 truth is not armed with tools like we were in pilot training, to fight illusions. 911 truth is flying in the weather and not about to use the instruments, 911 truth does not have them; math, physics, science, and knowledge are the instruments to make it to a safe landing in reality; 911 truth is lost in woo, they have no instruments to use.

Yes, 911 truth is like no ILS, no guidance, only woo. Sad to see a fellow pilot who can't figure out 911 as fast as the Passengers on Flight 93 did; aka minutes. 12 years and you are trying to back in CD.

You are off course, in the name of truth you believe in failed lies, and fantasies made up out of ignorance by 911 truth.

Sad to see a pilot who can't figure out RADAR proves 77 hit the Pentagon, much better than video. And then the FDR is there too. Like the Pentagon and 77, you can't get WTC 7 right, given 12 years and the answers. You picked lies from 911 truth for WTC 7 - that is as off course as you can get. You have fallen for the illusions of 911 truth.

You never were on course, and you are buried in the illusions of woo spread by 911 truth. Times like this make you wish physics was in your tool box.

Physical laws -- the kinds of laws Isaac Newton discovered and which govern our universe --were violated on 9/11:

What is you next step in trying to get people who already figured out 911 to fall for the failed claims of 911 truth with scenarios which did not happen on 911?


911 truth, using common sense, when physics and engineering is required.

David Watts- WTC7, a steel-framed building collapsed on 9/11 even though it was not hit by an airplane. The 47 story tall building collapsed in a perfectly symmetrical fashion on 9/11. In fact you can put a ruler on the screen as you view the collapse and it comes PERFECTLY STRAIGHT DOWN ON A LINE! The collapse exhibited every single characteristic of a controlled demolition; or perhaps better said, a finely produced implosion. And there was not a single characteristic of destruction by fire; much less asymmetrical fire or even asymmetrical damage. In fact, neither governmental agency, NIST nor FEMA has been able to figure out how fires could have caused the collapse. WTC7 was a TALL, NARROW, massively braced steel-framed building. For such a TALL, NARROW building to come down in such a precisely symmetrical fashion -- vs. falling off to the side -- and DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense

Own footprint? How is that going? The speed of a falling brick?

 

[david.watts]

Response

So, what is it that you do understand? You can be explicit.

Well, we ("truthers") understand that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that leads to 9/11 being a false flag attack/inside job. You understand that it was not a controlled demolition and that 19 Muslim hijackers under the direction of Osama Bin Ladin perpetrated the events on 9/11. That is to say, you understand that 9/11 was not a false flag attack/inside job. Let me know if I have misrepresented your understanding in any way.

The bottom line as we all know is that we do not have the same understanding.

 

[david.watts]

Do you realise that it's your understanding that is at fault? It's not that you've been slapped in the face by falsehoods it's that you're misunderstanding facts and believing them to be lies.

Do I realize that it is my understanding that is at fault? No, I that is not what I realize. If I asked you the same question regarding your understanding, your answer would be the same.

I believe I have a good mind that is reasonable, rational, logical. I am sure you believe the same thing about your mind. One of us is wrong. You think it's me, and I think it's you.

My restated scenario (#414):
And the basic premise being that if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

Reactor drone, would you like to weigh in? Do you agree or not agree?

 

[beachnut]

Well, we ("truthers") understand that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that leads to 9/11 being a false flag attack/inside job. You understand that it was not a controlled demolition and that 19 Muslim hijackers under the direction of Osama Bin Ladin perpetrated the events on 9/11. That is to say, you understand that 9/11 was not a false flag attack/inside job. Let me know if I have misrepresented your understanding in any way.

The bottom line as we all know is that we do not have the same understanding.

You base your understanding on nothing, the reality story is based on evidence.

You have a fantasy of an inside job based on ignorance of science. No big deal, you should have taken physics in college, and some chemical engineering. What was your major which has you unprepared to understand 911?

David Watts - DIRECTLY into its own footprint at about the speed of a falling brick; common sense

Two lies form your common sense approach to woo.

 

[jaydeehess]

Going from viewing the collapse, to the conclusion of demolitio n and false flag attack is an enormous, illogical leap.

First of all the collapse was not symmetric. Certainly not the "all four walls" at once that dw wishes us to believe. In addition, the roofline kinked about 1/3 from the east. Of course the interior DID collapse well ahead of the exterior.
911T seems to deliberately mis-characterize the collapse of WTC7. I can only surmise that this is driven by a political world view. It is most certainly not driven by objective logic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Nor did WTC fall into its own footprint. Parts of it hit WTC5 and the Fitterman building. That's one to the south and one to the north.

Oops , symmetry disappears yet again. The east portion fell to the NE , whereas the west portion went south.

 

[Reactor drone]

Do I realize that it is my understanding that is at fault? No, I that is not what I realize. If I asked you the same question regarding your understanding, your answer would be the same.

I believe I have a good mind that is reasonable, rational, logical. I am sure you believe the same thing about your mind. One of us is wrong. You think it's me, and I think it's you.

My restated scenario (#414):
And the basic premise being that if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling “all at once,” whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way “all at once.”

Reactor drone, would you like to weigh in? Do you agree or not agree?

In case you missed it,

For the WTC buildings "very nearly the same time" is correct(for certain values of very nearly the same). Rapid progressive failures are, by definition, rapid. Once the buildings structure reaches the point of failure it's a "straw that breaks the camel's back" scenario, one section overloads, that load is transferred to the next section which overloads and so on. With every piece that fails there's less capacity to take the transferred load and the rate of failure accelerates.

Where most CD proponents fail is not understanding how fast the process can be so they see a need to help it along with explosives.

 

[beachnut]

Forest have trees. Do you agree?

911 was an inside job. love the logic, everything is proof for the woo of 911 truth.

it would help if David Watts was an engineer (or a knowledgeable lay person with evidence and facts) and had something to offer to form some logical sequence. Or evidence would be cool.


do you agree?

 

[ozeco41]

Beachnut, I have a 747 type rating.

As to all of the stuff you have presented from my postings five years ago, I choose to not get into those; at least not now. I am trying to keep everyone here on the same route and not straying off course. If we start flying in different directions or flying different approaches, it will only lead to vertigo from the wake turbulence created for anyone trying to follow along. It would be kind of like flying an ILS with the glideslope or localizer out of service.

@david.watts

Your idea is more than getting everyone "on the same route and not straying off course".

You are insisting that we all keep doing "circuits and bumps" until everyone agrees your first point. Your plan also seems to want us to fly in formation with you to wherever you are going. However you, in this game, are somewhere between a Wright Biplane and a Cherokee.

Meanwhile - at this game we have a DC3, couple of Connies, one Concorde, an array of 7X7 types plus an A380.

So your idea of them all agreeing on a start point and then taking off in formation is.....a bit optimistic.

One big problem with that is that many of us cannot get down to your maximum speed AND keep flying.

And doing an FEA is more relevant than ILS.

 

[david.watts]

For the WTC buildings "very nearly the same time" is correct(for certain values of very nearly the same). Rapid progressive failures are, by definition, rapid. Once the buildings structure reaches the point of failure it's a "straw that breaks the camel's back" scenario, one section overloads, that load is transferred to the next section which overloads and so on. With every piece that fails there's less capacity to take the transferred load and the rate of failure accelerates.

Where most CD proponents fail is not understanding how fast the process can be so they see a need to help it along with explosives.

Reactor, you wrote "for the WTC buildings "very nearly the same time" is correct(for certain values of very nearly the same)." I do not disagree.

I have only been talking only about generic building 'x' and not about any WTC buildings. Obviously, if this continues, we will get there.

So just to be clear, I believe you are saying that ""... very nearly the same time" is correct (for certain values of very nearly the same)" and that it applies to building 'x.' And if so, Are you saying that you agree that "if an entire generic building ‘x’ -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- began falling at "all at once" whatever was supporting the entire building -- all four walls and roof and roofline -- must have given way "all at once." ?

If you agree, great. If you do not agree, is that because you see a significant enough difference between "very nearly the same time" and "all at once"?

(Note: In my original scenario I used the wording “at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time” When I restated it I used the wording "all at once." I did that because whether or not things happened "at the same", "virtually the same", or "very nearly the same" time, it did happen "all at once.")

Let me/us know your answer to the question above. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

...
Let me/us know your answer to the question above. Thanks.

Your proof is missing something. Do you agree?

Evidence has shown that nearly all of the concrete in both Twin Towers was pulverized into dust and powder, with a very large percentage of this being fine micron sized particles, as small as 0.2 microns. Since there is no mechanism in a simple gravity collapse to apply the energy in the perfectly even manner required to pulverize nearly all of the concrete into fine powder, microns thick, something else must have been taking place. And even if nearly all of the potential gravitational energy was actually released in the perfectly even fashion required and actually was being converted -- no longer being gravitational energy -- into FINE FLOATING powder, where was the energy required to plow through the ENTIRE Towers at nearly free-fall speed? The gravitational energy had been converted into floating powder. And as anyone would know, fine floating powder floats, and doesn’t push down very hard. This isn’t rocket science. It really is very simple; just ask any 10 year old with common sense. Floating powder doesn’t crush massive buildings, much less at nearly free-fall speed. This alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.

You should have taken physics. (BTW, it is rocket science; could be why 911 truth can't do reality)

What speed is free-fall speed? 100 knots, or 200 knots?

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-...-Watts-080324-705.html?show=votes#allcomments

Any 10 year old? How does this fit with the "all at once" stuff? When you get an agree, what will it mean for this nonsense you posted, where you wave your hands and declare 19 terrorists did 911 is a lie?

 

[david.watts]

@david.watts

Your idea is more than getting everyone "on the same route and not straying off course".

You are insisting that we all keep doing "circuits and bumps" until everyone agrees your first point. Your plan also seems to want us to fly in formation with you to wherever you are going. However you, in this game, are somewhere between a Wright Biplane and a Cherokee.

Meanwhile - at this game we have a DC3, couple of Connies, one Concorde, an array of 7X7 types plus an A380.

So your idea of them all agreeing on a start point and then taking off in formation is.....a bit optimistic.

One big problem with that is that many of us cannot get down to your maximum speed AND keep flying.

And doing an FEA is more relevant than ILS.

Very, very good!! On point and witty!!

Just to be clear, "Your plan also seems to want us to fly in formation with you to wherever you are going." Yes, but of course I am simply trying to get us to "fly in formation" from a common "start point," as you said. After that, I know we have different flight plans. But at least, we -- or some of us -- are departing from the same point.

 

[Robrob]

And as anyone would know, fine floating powder floats, and doesn’t push down very hard.

Not that any of the rest of that made sense but seriously?

How much does he think 110 stories of "fine powder" weighs?

 

[ozeco41]

Very, very good!! On point and witty!!

Just to be clear, "Your plan also seems to want us to fly in formation with you to wherever you are going." Yes, but of course I am simply trying to get us to "fly in formation" from a common "start point," as you said. After that, I know we have different flight plans. But at least, we -- or some of us -- are departing from the same point.

I lived (pre 1994) under the training circuit for Bankstown Airport - busiest general aviation field in AU - three runways in parallel on 11/29. 6-8-10 planes in circuit most of each weekend. My amateur radio "shack" had one scanner on 120.5 if memory correct. The funniest ATC radio call I ever heard was "Bankstown Tower Australian 567 requests clearance for one further low level pass from the West. Departing vertically for flight level 200". What that did to Sydney Kingsford Smith Approach ATC you can guess.

However, fun aside:

I am hinting that you give some of our 7X7 pilots a clue as to the next localiser/VOR - whatever you call those "where to go things" - before they go too far. The Concord is already out of sight.

Cheers.

 

[david.watts]

Not that any of the rest of that made sense but seriously?

How much does he think 110 stories of "fine powder" weighs?

As I said to Beachnut, I choose to not get into five year old posts or anything else that does not apply to building 'x.' BUT ... I will say that while I have absolutely no idea how much "110 stories of "fine powder" weighs," I am pretty sure it does not "push down very hard."