• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

"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."

I would think we would probably all agree that at this point, it is time to takeoff and go somewhere.

The flaps are set and we are in position; no reason not to set takeoff power and depart. Fasten, or don't fasten, your seat belts. Rotation to "positive rate, gear up" is here. But first, let me take a break; I need one. Back soon.
 
david.watts said:
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."
Click to expand...
What,? is your 5 year old stuff refuted by you? Are you saying 911 was not an inside job?

Are you taking back the old nonsense? Is this the new stuff to back in CD, or what? Are you going to erase you old failed claims on 911? Oh, mass does not push down? How will you be able to evaluate your fuzzy agreement issue and not understand mass?

So a 60 pound bag of fine concrete dust does not push down as much as 60 pounds of solid concrete? Is this the new physics you got in 747 upgrade training? Or was it a google thing?

Which is heavier, 1 pound of feathers, or one pound of concrete, or one pound of concrete dust? How do you know there is a pilot at a party?
 
david.watts said:
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."
Click to expand...

Wow... :boggled:
 
Oops, I meant to say, "I will say that while I have absolutely no idea how much "110 stories of "floating fine powder" weighs," I am pretty sure it does not "push down very hard. I mean ... its floating."
 
Tower: “Cleared for takeoff.” Takeoff power set, … oops, forgot to release the brake. But that’s okay, tower said “hold in position.” They want a tally.

AGREE MAYBE DISAGREE

Achimspok (#327) - Agree
Clayton Moore (#370) - Agree
alienentity (#425) - Agree
GlennB (#436) - Maybe
Reactor drone (#423) - Agree, I think
jaydeehess (#415) - Agree
DGM (#416) - Agree
Richard the G (#418) - Maybe
ozeco41 (#420) - Agree


Once again we are cleared for takeoff -- heading and altitude unknown. When we get to V1 there is no turning back. Let’s have a nice flight.
 
Last edited:
david.watts said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, if your hypothetical building has a perfectly simultaneous collapse of all parts then the loss of support must have been simultaneous.

Since that didn't happen to any buildings on 9/11 and this is the 9/11 sub-forum I'm not sure why we would want to discuss the hypothetical building.
 
Reactor drone said:
Sure, if your hypothetical building has a perfectly simultaneous collapse of all parts then the loss of support must have been simultaneous.

Since that didn't happen to any buildings on 9/11 and this is the 9/11 sub-forum I'm not sure why we would want to discuss the hypothetical building.
Click to expand...

What support? It makes no senses, and his building is not defined. Is cards? Blocks? Card board Gage show and tell? Is there a picture of the imaginary building?

What does it have to do with free-fall? And the WTC is floating.

And remember,
David Watts - According to conservation-of-momentum laws, the block of approximately 34 floors on top of the South Tower should have continued to topple and fall through the path of least resistance: the air. It should have continued to topple and fall to the ground far outside the building’s footprint and NOT through the path of most resistance: the building itself.
Click to expand...
Floating building parts, and the famous law of "path of least resistance", what the linebackers do as the slide off the ball carrier into the path of least resistance, Air. Bill Cosby, "why is there air". To have a path of least resistance. \\
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-...-Watts-080324-705.html?show=votes#allcomments

What is the imaginary building built out of?

I don't agree, WTC 7 was not CD, and his scenario is silly, undefined, and has no substance - like all 911 truth claims, and like the "law", the "path of least resistance" stuff.

Does he have a diagram of his building, and the support?
 
Last edited:
david.watts said:
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.
Click to expand...

A moment frame will resist lateral movement and should keep the building exterior intact as it collapses. Therefore, the answer to your 'all at once' is 'not necessarily' because several supports may go and the building may not collapse, it may go once a critical number of supports have gone, and at that point whatever support remains may be taken out as the load is redistributed.

If the interior is not applying a force via initial collapse, your scenario has drastically veered from reflecting WTC7 on 9/11 and is now an apparently meaningless thought exercise.
 
david.watts said:
Tower: “Cleared for takeoff.” Takeoff power set, … oops, forgot to release the brake. But that’s okay, tower said “hold in position.” They want a tally.

... Once again we are cleared for takeoff -- heading and altitude unknown. When we get to V1 there is no turning back. Let’s have a nice flight.
Click to expand...
OOPS, you flew into a flock of woo, and crashed into the pit of ignorance, known as 911 truth. You should have read the NOTAMS for the field, and gained knowledge before you crashed and burned, again. 5 years of nonsense, and now an imaginary building scenario which makes no sense, and remains undefined, no purpose, no goal, no joy. Can you turn this around and debunk your old claims of woo, or tie your new scenario to free-fall? Or one point of free-fall for a collapse that took over 16 seconds to complete? no? Why not? Having more illusions from 911 truth?

Can you explain the path of least resistance law? Source it?
 
Beachnut: You quoted me from five years ago:

"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."


You indicated that I was referring to "WTC floating" and "floating building parts." Maybe you did not read what I wrote. I was literally -- read the above -- talking about the (massive) amount of pulverized concrete floating. "Building parts" can't float, but pulverized concrete can.

You are making it very tough to stick to the subject at hand. If you have been following along, it should be clear I am trying to prevent any "distractions." Hopefully, we can get to some of those later. Ok?
 
david.watts said:
Beachnut: You quoted me from five years ago:

"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."


You indicated that I was referring to "WTC floating" and "floating building parts." Maybe you did not read what I wrote. I was literally -- read the above -- talking about the (massive) amount of pulverized concrete floating. "Building parts" can't float, but pulverized concrete can.

You are making it very tough to stick to the subject at hand. If you have been following along, it should be clear I am trying to prevent any "distractions." Hopefully, we can get to some of those later. Ok?
Click to expand...
Are you a pilot for truth member too?
Cool, how does your undefined building and scenario stuff relate to the OP, free-fall?

Please define "path of least resistance law", and source it to a physics? Source?

Does this mean you have retracted the lies? And you continue to say a pound of concrete dust weight less than a pound of solid concrete? Mass is not mass when it is small mass?

Wait, you talk of free-fall, and more. (warning, or is it caution, free-fall is in the old stuff, and more )
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. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-...-Watts-080324-705.html?show=votes#allcomments
Click to expand...
You claim most the WTC was turned to dust, so it can't crush the rest of the WTC, and you say the WTC collapsed at free-fall (a lie), and defied the "law of path of least resistance". What is the source of the law of least resistance, and have you retracted this? Where is your retraction?

Your 5 year old stuff is about free-fall, mixed with massless mass, and more woo. Please explain, or retract. Pick the path.

Does your undefined building of cards (or what) fall at g? How many joules are stored in your building you have failed to define? Wood, or steel? E=mgh, how many joules?

Is there sand in your concrete, or is it massless dust? Is this why sand blasting does not work? Or What?
 
Last edited:
Someone let me know when this thing starts going somewhere....

We've agreed that in hypothetical cases hypothetical things happen. Have I got that right so far?
 
alienentity said:
Someone let me know when this thing starts going somewhere....

We've agreed that in hypothetical cases hypothetical things happen. Have I got that right so far?
Click to expand...

Yes, you've got it. At least hypothetically. :)

I will post a post that will get things going again. I'm pretty sure it will be after a night's sleep. Wherever you are, have a good one.
 
david.watts said:
Yes, you've got it. At least hypothetically. :)

I will post a post that will get things going again. I'm pretty sure it will be after a night's sleep. Wherever you are, have a good one.
Click to expand...

Your hypothetical makes no sense, and has no value.

Why can't you source the "path of least resistance law"? Where do you find your woo, and why can't you retract your old stuff mixed with silly free-fall, and other far out stuff? If you studied for 911 like you did for your ATP, you would not be pink slipped at each post.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
Someone let me know when this thing starts going somewhere....

We've agreed that in hypothetical cases hypothetical things happen. Have I got that right so far?
Click to expand...

Yes. and too many of our members are not prepared to agree with a simple step one physics question.

Some of us are prepared to work with d.w through his sequence of logic. Others want to jump 1>2>>>7 steps ahead.

I am prepared to work with him. I don't see any need to prevaricate about step one to protect my arse if I disagree with step 2>3>4 whatever.

We are so used to dealing with trolls we seem to have forgotten how to hold a rational discussion - either on his terms OR on any of ours.

AND IMNSHO* Archaeological quotemining should have went >>>>>>>>>that away
OR
<<<<<<<<<that away.



* I failed Humbleness 101
and never attempted Modesty 201 :D
 
beachnut said:
Your hypothetical makes no sense, and has no value.
Click to expand...
nono.gif
 
ozeco41 said:
Yes. and too many of our members are not prepared to agree with a simple step one physics question.

Some of us are prepared to work with d.w through his sequence of logic. Others want to jump 1>2>>>7 steps ahead.

I am prepared to work with him. I don't see any need to prevaricate about step one to protect my arse if I disagree with step 2>3>4 whatever.

We are so used to dealing with trolls we seem to have forgotten how to hold a rational discussion - either on his terms OR on any of ours.

AND IMNSHO* Archaeological quotemining should have went >>>>>>>>>that away
OR
<<<<<<<<<that away.



* I failed Humbleness 101
and never attempted Modesty 201 :D
Click to expand...

His scenario is not agreeable, it has no substance. It fails because it has no scenario, it is missing information. Based on his history, he is trying to back in CD with some scenario he gets people to agree on. A scenario which does not make sense. Like asking what 1 plus .... equals. Plus what? He can't source his law of least resistance, can you? Help him? We have another pilot like Balsamo who can't get past free-fall because he can't do physics. No big deal.
 
david.watts said:
Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D


(Note re: footnotes. I apparently not allowed to add URLs until afyer 15 posts)
1.) Freefall and Building 7: Search: "ae911truth 426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911"

2.) “WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008. Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it recently removed both of them. The transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website


3.) NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 - p.45 (The report talks about WTC7 “descend[ing] at gravitational acceleration, i.e., free fall” and the “free fall continu[ing].
Click to expand...

What we have is a scenario which makes no sense. David tries to take agreement for his scenario, to support a failed proof. Where is the source for that "law of least resistance"?

What a dumb proof, or what? Time to appease the truther, or what?
 
Last edited:
Beachnut, I have a read for you to help explain the floating dust subject that was referenced above by both you and I. I think it makes a lot of sense. Let me know what you think:

9/11. NIST: Heavy Dust Brought Down Twin Towers - Debate Hosted by Larry King
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-NIST-Heavy-Dust-Brou-by-David-Watts-080216-204.html

(I know this is a distraction and that I was hoping to avoid any distractions. But I think it is an interesting one. Hopefully we can terminate this distraction after you, Beachnut, let me know what you think. Will you?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom