Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[david.watts]

I see you are not following along. Listen up. The scenario we are discussing/debating is: "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.”" We are not discussing/debating the original proof that I posted. Understand that I understand that you adamantly "know" that it proves nothing. So please, no more comments regarding "the proof." Thank you.

 

[GlennB]

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....."

This is factually false, having been put around by Jim Hoffman about the time he was calculating expansion rates/energy input etc of the WTC dust clouds.

Hoffman took his figures from the Lioy et al study and extrapolated them to the entire concrete content of The Towers. It was willingly taken up by Truthers who knew no better and hadn't bothered to read Lioy.

Have you read Lioy in the meantime and learned better?

 

[ozeco41]

I see you are not following along. Listen up. The scenario we are discussing/debating is: "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.”" We are not discussing/debating the original proof that I posted. Understand that I understand that you adamantly "know" that it proves nothing. So please, no more comments regarding "the proof." Thank you.

David please make your mind up. Are you serious or are you playing games.

You are outnumbered here and if you want serious debate posting that Larry King parody will not help you.

Irony, parody, sarcasm, analogy - none of them perform well with the average forum participant.

It is hard enough to address your current question without YOU assisting all those members who want to derail into past history and truther bashing.

Your call. Serious or "playing into the truther bashers hands"?

I don't care which you choose but your procrastination and vacillation is killing any interest I had.

 

[david.watts]

I apologize. My post above, #481, was supposed to be to be directly directed to Beachnut. Not the rest of you.

 

[beachnut]

I see you are not following along. Listen up. The scenario we are discussing/debating is: "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.”" We are not discussing/debating the original proof that I posted. Understand that I understand that you adamantly "know" that it proves nothing. So please, no more comments regarding "the proof." Thank you.

Listen up, this is about free-fall, and why 911 truth can't get a single thing right, save the date, about 911.

Please explain your "law of least resistance". Where did it come from? It is on your page of free-fall, and other failed 911 truth junk. Did you retract your posts? Where is the retraction of all that woo?

Your scenario is weak and unreadable.

Oh, have you retracted the original proof forever, or until you get your scenario rubber stamped for approval?

 

[GlennB]

I see you are not following along. Listen up. The scenario we are discussing/debating is: "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.”"

Your scenario is still faulty - the bolded part there does not equate to "an entire building".

 

[david.watts]

David please make your mind up. Are you serious or are you playing games.

You are outnumbered here and if you want serious debate posting that Larry King parody will not help you.

Irony, parody, sarcasm, analogy - none of them perform well with the average forum participant.

It is hard enough to address your current question without YOU assisting all those members who want to derail into past history and truther bashing.

Your call. Serious or "playing into the truther bashers hands"?

I don't care which you choose but your procrastination and vacillation is killing any interest I had.

I understand what you have said. And I well know this is not a humorous subject. My five-year-old post at opednews, was an attempt to show that what I believe can be easily understood by others, i.e., it really isn't rocket science; one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist or even a physicist to "see" what happened. Maybe just an open mind. And yes, I admit -- obvious, no? -- that I was at the same time trying to amuse myself and other "truthers." I plead guilty to attempting to use an amusing tactic directed at a very serious subject. But, at the same time, I thought it might actually be an effective way to reach some people. Did it? I don't know. But I was trying to -- in a humorous way -- to make what I think is a very valid point. And by being humorous, I was thinking I might be able to reach some particular segment that disagrees or is not paying much attention. So, I am sorry that I caused to you to legitimately take offense to that approach by me. But I have to say again, the underlying point I was attempting to make I believe is true and important to the truth (as I and MANY others see it) about 9/11.

 

[david.watts]

ozeco41, I forgot to include in my response to you that I hope you understand. Also, that link was really pointed at Beachnut. Given the way he responds, I wanted to see how he reacted to it. And yes, I understood that others, yourself included, may well view the link. But if anyone did, I was hoping it would help make sense of what I was trying to say.

 

[david.watts]

I have not intentionally been procrastinating. I simply do not write very quickly. But I do try to portray my thoughts correctly. And, I have responded to quite a few posts tonight. It has taken a fair amount of time and I do have other things to attend to. Anyway, after I wake up, I will post something that gets us beyond where we have been. We'll see where it goes from here. If any of you are still up and reading this, good night.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

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?

If you're so sure your belief is true then why the insistence on a hypothetical rather than dealing with the specific example of WTC 7?

Some have already said they agree with your statement but that it doesn't represent what happened. You won't get affirmative responses from everyone so why not just move past this and flesh out the remainder of your argument.

My suspicion is that you're not fully comfortable with your beliefs to argue them with a group of people that can rip them to shreds.

 

[LSSBB]

If you're so sure your belief is true then why the insistence on a hypothetical rather than dealing with the specific example of WTC 7?

Some have already said they agree with your statement but that it doesn't represent what happened. You won't get affirmative responses from everyone so why not just move past this and flesh out the remainder of your argument.

My suspicion is that you're not fully comfortable with your beliefs to argue them with a group of people that can rip them to shreds.

He got a non-affirmative response from me, and has yet to even acknowledge it. OT banter with Beachnut appears more attractive.

 

[tsig]

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.

Do you do understand that when a column buckles it does so "all at once"?

 

[tsig]

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?

You can always tell a pilot, you just can't tell them much.

(Yes, I've had that around for a while)

 

[tsig]

Wow...

Kinda destroys any hope of communication.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

I see you are not following along. Listen up. The scenario we are discussing/debating is: "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.”" We are not discussing/debating the original proof that I posted. Understand that I understand that you adamantly "know" that it proves nothing. So please, no more comments regarding "the proof." Thank you.

Sorry David but since you went beyond your hypothetical generic building, we really are discussing more tha that, including WTC7 and the details of its collapse.

 

[ozeco41]

Sorry David but since you went beyond your hypothetical generic building, we really are discussing more tha that, including WTC7 and the details of its collapse.

He is not helping himself.

In this hostile environment the chance of getting any debunker member to discuss david's path of logic is remote - look at all the debunker efforts to avoid following even his first step by imposing the debunker's frame of reference.

But david plays into all those derails.

I have been trying to get him to stop falling for the derails and to present his step two - to no avail.

The bit you quoted shows the common false dichotomy shared by most truthers viz:

...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....

Have we ever seen a truther who would specify what bits of the official story they disagreed with?

Have we ever seen a truther who could pursue a step by step path of reasoned logic?

And will we the mob of debunkers let him even if he tries?

So I think I have stood up for him as hard as I can without fighting his battle for him. And he continues to procrastinate about telling us where he is going OR what step two is.

It could have been fun. Most of us have long forgotten what a genuine truther looks like. Certainly one who will engage in discussion aimed at progressing. (All our departed trolls have the goal of going round in circles.)

I doubt that he can rescue this with people lining up to tell him where step 3-4----9 are wrong and he wont move on to step 2




PS - Yes I comprehend what he is really trying to say with that false dichotomy but wanted to make the simpler points I used it for.

 

[beachnut]

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?)

Love it, your Hitler quote page. 911 truth biggest losers, match Hitler quote. Your quote of Hitler is the definition of 911 truth. 911 truth keeps saying inside job, and you picked up the claims and push them. Where did you get the path of least resistance law? What physics book has that? Where the building slides off into the air, not down with g. Do you know which direction g works in?

Free-fall, you say free-fall about the WTC. Has that been retracted? Do you move to reality, or are you trying to prove the CD junk?

 

[JSanderO]

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?

Your example is not what happened on 9/11 to either of the 3 buildings. All three show movements prior to the very obvious building collapses. The fact that there was movement BEFORE release (the easily naked eye observed collapse/movement) means that the structures within each building were "coming undone"... that is losing their capacity to support load. The release came when the aggregate capacity dropped below the aggregate loads. This is precisely how a PROGRESSIVE CASCADING structural (system) failure occurs.

Think of a rust corroding a column for example. Everything is fine until the rust has consumed so much of the steel that the capacity of the column is lost and it collapses in one fell swoop. You don't see the progressive erosion and loss of capacity (unless you are looking for it). And this is how the Miamus River bridge span collapsed. There one minute then in the river the next.... in a process that was years of neglected maintenance.

But to respond to your theoretical statement... if an entire structure collapses at once, as an integrated structure, then the only conclusion is that all axial supports of that structure were destroyed. But of course this did not happen on 9/11 and there was no CD matching THIS scenario.

 

[tsig]

Your example is not what happened on 9/11 to either of the 3 buildings. All three show movements prior to the very obvious building collapses. The fact that there was movement BEFORE release (the easily naked eye observed collapse/movement) means that the structures within each building were "coming undone"... that is losing their capacity to support load. The release came when the aggregate capacity dropped below the aggregate loads. This is precisely how a PROGRESSIVE CASCADING structural (system) failure occurs.

Think of a rust corroding a column for example. Everything is fine until the rust has consumed so much of the steel that the capacity of the column is lost and it collapses in one fell swoop. You don't see the progressive erosion and loss of capacity (unless you are looking for it). And this is how the Miamus River bridge span collapsed. There one minute then in the river the next.... in a process that was years of neglected maintenance.

But to respond to your theoretical statement... if an entire structure collapses at once, as an integrated structure, then the only conclusion is that all axial supports of that structure were destroyed. But of course this did not happen on 9/11 and there was no CD matching THIS scenario.

Instant collapse with no warning:

The Silver Bridge was an eyebar-chain suspension bridge built in 1928 and named for the color of its aluminum paint. The bridge connected Point Pleasant, West Virginia and Gallipolis, Ohio, over the Ohio River.

On December 15, 1967, the Silver Bridge collapsed while it was full of rush-hour traffic, resulting in the deaths of 46 people. Two of the victims were never found. Investigation of the wreckage pointed to the cause of the collapse being the failure of a single eyebar in a suspension chain, due to a small defect 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) deep. Analysis showed that the bridge was carrying much heavier loads than it had originally been designed for and was poorly maintained.


I lived close and had been over the bridge many times.

ETA: first time ever in history for a eyebar-chain bridge collapse.

 

[alienentity]

Why did I even bother to check that OpEd News link? 'it is well known that not just all of the concrete, but all of the filing cabinets, chairs, computers, telephones, and everything else, including all of the people, were pulverized into all of that fine floating dust/powder that covered Manhattan inches deep. '

David, please tell me you don't actually believe the above. If this is your idea of a joke it's not funny.

Either way I've lost interest in your thought exercise. It was worth considering for about 30 seconds until we moved on. The hypothetical scenario didn't happen. When are you going to start talking about reality?