Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[alienentity]

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.

MSM has been covering up the eyewitness reports around that time of a strange 'Mothman' who was seen flying around the Virginia area. After the collapse of the bridge, sightings of the Mothman ceased. Source
The government has never disclosed what secret technology was being tested by the flying man, nor will they discuss the fact of chemtrail poisoning which goes on to this day.

This technology could be a precursor to the instant molecular dissociation of the twin towers on 9/11 - what else could turn filing cabinets, chairs, computers, telephones, and everything else, including ALL the structural steel into a fine powder which simply floated off?

This goes way deeper than you realize. The psychotic delusions, that is.

 

[jaydeehess]

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:

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

Indeed true.
I, and you , and iirc a few others ACCEPTED his hypothetical , 4 walls at once drop of a generic building.

I pointed out that its just a rewording of a free body falling object, but yes a free falling object would fall at 'g', or at least have an upper limit of 'g'.

I, and you , then waited, or attempted to pursue a step 2/greater detail scenario.
To no avail. Instead David began spouting the tired old truther lines.

Was that in response to debunker goading? Perhaps. Its likely to happen given that we have been arguing those same lines for a decade now.

 

[jaydeehess]

Since we are being cajoled to consider hypothetical, generic building, collapses:

A hypothetical, generic structure is observed to collapse quickly and the acceleration of points on its face ramp up to a value greater than 'g', before ramping down to zero acceleration as the structure completes its fall.

Question: Given that free body acceleration has an upper limit of 'g', the period of acceleration above 'g' conclusively indicates some other mechanism or effect is in play in accelerating the object, or at least in the measurement of that acceleration.
Agree or disagree?
***NOTE***
This is but step 1. Step 2, assuming the proposal above is agreed to, would be a listing of mechanisms by which acceleration could be caused to be, or at least measured as, above 'g'. Step 3 would be detailing these causes.

 

[ozeco41]

...Was that in response to debunker goading? Perhaps. Its likely to happen given that we have been arguing those same lines for a decade now.

Probably not to the "goading" although anyone coming here would have to deal with it.

However we now have at least fur more derails. Let's see if he can manage them:

HINT: David - Experience says it is best to ignore them - second best is call them THEN ignore.

And don't post parodies - note that so far I am the only one who has called "Parody"

- and I'm taking a risk of more derails by even saying that

 

[david.watts]

Sorry everyone. I started to post 5 hours ago when I got up and found out my online connection was not working. Unpaid bill. It is a new connection and I set it for autopay but it did not go through. It may take as long as 24 hours to get it restored. I am now at a friends place using his computer. Let me look quickly through recent response. I will get right back.

 

[david.watts]

LSSBB, I think I was waiting for a response from you but apparently missed it. I will take your non*affirmative response as a maybe. Had to use an * as the dash on this keyboard as it is inop.

 

[GlennB]

LSSBB, I think I was waiting for a response from you but apparently missed it. I will take your non*affirmative response as a maybe. Had to use an * as the dash on this keyboard as it is inop.

Why don't you stop grading resonses to your 'scenario' as if they were votes, yea or nay, and address the many substantive issues that have been put to you?

It's my impression that you're just trying to negotiate people here into a strange corner of your own devising, whereupon - if you succeed -you'll claim that people here 'agree' with you in some general sense.

That might be comforting for you, but it don't amount to a hill o' beans vs. the many factual errors that you apparently still adhere to (unless you disowned them. Did you retract? Do you still believe the WTC concrete was entirely reduced to fine dust? )

 

[david.watts]

I see there are more questions and will try to answer those after I put together something that will get us going again.

To be clear, it wasn't I that brought up 5 year old stuff I had written. Beachnut started posting the old comments. And I should NOT have gone there. Probably it was the late night wine. I don't over drink but I do drink enough to lighten me up. I honestly regret getting into the old stuff that had been posted.

I will try to quickly post my next step.

 

[beachnut]

I see there are more questions and will try to answer those after I put together something that will get us going again.

To be clear, it wasn't I that brought up 5 year old stuff I had written. Beachnut started posting the old comments. And I should NOT have gone there. Probably it was the late night wine. I don't over drink but I do drink enough to lighten me up. I honestly regret getting into the old stuff that had been posted.

I will try to quickly post my next step.

Get us going?

... Ok Truth seekers, time to put your money where your mouth is. Prove to the world that there was significant sustained freefall (right at the acceleration of gravity), or that periods of freefall cannot be explained by a collapse without demolitions.

Your scenario has not shown much; what was the goal? Do you have a road-map, a flight plan, a purpose, a thesis?


You seem to be stuck on CD, and the free-fall stuff, plus more.
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11--Did-Barbara-Olson-r-by-David-Watts-080331-783.html

More free-fall junk,

Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than “insiders” could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 (“CIA Building”); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by “insiders.”
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11--Tom-Murphy-Provides-by-David-Watts-080318-747.html

Preparation for CD? At free-fall?
And implicit free-fall stuff. You are into CD, has this changed?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-How-many-virtual-pro-by-David-Watts-080324-705.html

Thus, the old free-fall posts you made and the breaking the law of physics, and the made up law of path of least resistance, are all debunked, and you are moving on, able to debunk CD now? Or will you continue making up lay person engineering to back in CD by getting agreement with with no resolution models.

Have you retracted your old stuff yet? Is 911 and inside job? What is your next step to back in CD? What is after your scenario? 12 years, and CD lost again, and the inside job claims are anti-intellectual claptrap. What is next to ...

... Ok Truth seekers, time to put your money where your mouth is. Prove to the world that there was significant sustained freefall (right at the acceleration of gravity), or that periods of freefall cannot be explained by a collapse without demolitions.

 

[david.watts]

Is this correct: First , the penthouse collapsed quickly and then 5 seconds later the rest of the configuration (screen room?) started collapsing quickly and the walls (the ones we can see) and roof began to collapse together along with the screen room or whatever it was. I am aware of the 'kink' at the top of the North wall. It appears to 'kink down.' Are you aware of what Chandler/ae911 say about this? I believe I am correct [i'm hurrying to get this out. I was going to verify what they say but need to keep typin.] that they say it was not a 'kink' down but a 'kink' in. It appears to kink down from certain angles. But other angles show that was not the case, it kinked "in."

Sorry, can we start there?

Its one thing after another. I now have to return to my place (internet out) to let in a plumber. Back as soon as I can be.

 

[jaydeehess]

Re-posting to make sure that David sees this:

David, I posted and agreement that in your hypothetical scenario in which an object, in this case a generic building, was seen to collapse in a block, and subjectively quickly attain, and retain, an acceleration of 'g', that it would be indicative of loss of columnar support.

Now its your turn:

A hypothetical, generic structure is observed to collapse quickly, and the acceleration of points on its face ramp up to a value greater than 'g', before ramping down to zero acceleration as the structure completes its fall.

Question: Given that free body acceleration has an upper limit of 'g', the period of acceleration above 'g' conclusively indicates some other mechanism or effect is in play, in accelerating the object, or at least in the measurement of that acceleration.
Agree or disagree?
***NOTE***
This is but step 1. Step 2, assuming the proposal above is agreed to, would be a listing of mechanisms by which acceleration could be caused to be, or at least measured as, above 'g'. Step 3 would be detailing these causes.

 

[jaydeehess]

While I await a response to post 511:

Is this correct: First , the penthouse collapsed quickly and then 5 seconds(after the beginning of the east penthouse fall) later the rest of the configuration (screen room?) (screen wall. Both east penthouse and screen wall are mechanical areas, air conditioning, elevators motors etc.) started collapsing quickly and the walls (the ones we can see) and roof began to collapse together along with the screen wall. ( in essence, yes. Screen wall had begun falling in, when the release of the entire east and west blocks occured) I am aware of the 'kink' at the top of the North wall. It appears to 'kink down.' Are you aware of what Chandler/ae911 say about this? I believe I am correct i'm hurrying to get this out. I was going to verify what they say but need to keep typin.] that they say it was not a 'kink' down but a 'kink' in. It appears to kink down from certain angles. But other angles show that was not the case, it kinked "in."

It is odd that Chandler wishes to take into account horizontal effects in (by cartesian convention) the 'z' axis, when he cannot be bothered to do so when considering the vertical acceleration of the structure.

However, either way, strict 'z' axis, or strict 'y' axis kink, or combination of both, it does indicate pre-release movement. It does indicate a line in the 'y' axis that would suggest that the initial collapse was somewhere along this line as this 'kink' is the first overtly visible indication of the collapse.. Chandler, nor AE911T, seems to be concerned with that fact. Odd considering this would be a natural time to begin the collapse clock.

As for 'z' or 'y' axis for the kink, ozeco may recall more of what femer2 discovered about this, or the levelness of the roofline, or if he even bothered with this aspect.

 

[LSSBB]

LSSBB, I think I was waiting for a response from you but apparently missed it. I will take your non*affirmative response as a maybe. Had to use an * as the dash on this keyboard as it is inop.

By maybe I mean your conjecture of near simultaneous collapse is not the only possibility in your scenario. Rereading your proposal, since it says 'must', I reject it, since much support can be lost without catastrophic failure, until a critical point is reached. If this is a moment frame building such as WTC7, that is, because the exterior will hold together to the point of catastrophic failure, and thus appear intact beyond those support columns that have failed.

I still find your scenario meaningless given observed conditions. Nice try, maybe a computer simulation would be a better second try for you, and best wishes.

 

[beachnut]

Is this correct: First , the penthouse collapsed quickly and then 5 seconds later the rest of the configuration (screen room?) started collapsing quickly and the walls (the ones we can see) and roof began to collapse together along with the screen room or whatever it was. I am aware of the 'kink' at the top of the North wall. It appears to 'kink down.' Are you aware of what Chandler/ae911 say about this? I believe I am correct [i'm hurrying to get this out. I was going to verify what they say but need to keep typin.] that they say it was not a 'kink' down but a 'kink' in. It appears to kink down from certain angles. But other angles show that was not the case, it kinked "in."

Sorry, can we start there?

Its one thing after another. I now have to return to my place (internet out) to let in a plumber. Back as soon as I can be.

The Penthouse collapsed slowly over 3 seconds into WTC 7, and before this, the interior for unknown seconds was failing. This means the Penthouse was a slow collapse until support for the Penthouse was lost and parts of the Penthouse slow fell in. Then 5 to 6 seconds after Penthouse falls, more of the roof collapses into WTC 7. Then the roof line sags in the center, and from one video the collapsing roof disappears behind buildings. Total collapse time to behind buildings from start of Penthouse over 12 seconds. Twice as slow as free-fall, as the interior support was failing enough to let the Penthouse fail, making the total collaspe time the time of the interior failure (unknown), and the time after the building passes behind buildings and into the dust cloud (smoke and more). Thus we have 2 to 3 times the time it takes a brick to fall the same distance. No explosives, no thermite. 911 truth has liars who make up claims about free-fall based on nothing but opinions, which sound good to a fringe few. And the lie of thermite made up by a failed physicst from BYU, who adds kicker charges in his fantasy, silent at that, and they leave no evidence, and thermite that leaves no iron, zero products, like magic, or more likely, fantasy.

How do you work free-fall into a 2 to 3 times slower than free-fall collapse, with no evidence of CD? You know, reality, what really happened on 911.


But what does this have to do with the OP, the ILS final course?

... Ok Truth seekers, time to put your money where your mouth is. Prove to the world that there was significant sustained freefall (right at the acceleration of gravity), or that periods of freefall cannot be explained by a collapse without demolitions.

The free-fall claims for me were red flags for lies and woo; proof 911 truth was the one of the most anti-intellectual movements, up there with Bigfoot and Chemtrails.

 

[jaydeehess]

I still find your scenario meaningless given observed conditions. .

It has meaning IF and only IF it remains in the purely hypothetical. As I have said several times its just a rewording of the description for a free body falling in the earth's gravity well. Simply a name, generic building, being put to the 'body'.

If it is to then be applied to WTC7 (or WTC 1 or WTC 2 for that matter), it is meaningless as it is less than a first approximation of what happened, as a forensic tool.

That said, we DO have work done and posted in these forum threads, that I balked at , at first, then came to accept for its attention to detail. That is the work done by femr2. He details the movements of the building, both vertical and horizontal, of the upper NW corner, and iirc a couple other points.

His graphs show acceleration exceeding 'g', so do NIST's and Chandler's. I still contend that this illustrates quite conclusively that other effects were in play besides simple free body vertical acceleration. Two factors have been identified as possibly being factors in the acceleration of the structure's exterior frame. One other could be 'margin of error', however femr2 seems to have shown that this would not be a significant enough factor.

Hopefully when david watts gets back he can address the hypothetical I proposed.

 

[LSSBB]

It has meaning IF and only IF it remains in the purely hypothetical. As I have said several times its just a rewording of the description for a free body falling in the earth's gravity well. Simply a name, generic building, being put to the 'body'.

If it is to then be applied to WTC7 (or WTC 1 or WTC 2 for that matter), it is meaningless as it is less than a first approximation of what happened, as a forensic tool.

That said, we DO have work done and posted in these forum threads, that I balked at , at first, then came to accept for its attention to detail. That is the work done by femr2. He details the movements of the building, both vertical and horizontal, of the upper NW corner, and iirc a couple other points.

His graphs show acceleration exceeding 'g', so do NIST's and Chandler's. I still contend that this illustrates quite conclusively that other effects were in play besides simple free body vertical acceleration. Two factors have been identified as possibly being factors in the acceleration of the structure's exterior frame. One other could be 'margin of error', however femr2 seems to have shown that this would not be a significant enough factor.

Hopefully when david watts gets back he can address the hypothetical I proposed.

I wonder if he will propose, ala the standoffish Bilbo, that explosives caused over 'g'. Such a ludicrous proposition given the mass of the building and the amount of explosives required to produce such an effect.

 

[jaydeehess]

I wonder if he will propose, ala the standoffish Bilbo, that explosives caused over 'g'. Such a ludicrous proposition given the mass of the building and the amount of explosives required to produce such an effect.

Well, one can suppose that a person ignorant of what explosives actually do might put forth such a scenario. They'd be wrong and easily debunked. In fact explosives work by producing a rapidly expanding pressure wave. It exerts a force on the material around it AWAY from the origin of the blast. That IS what ALL explosives do, no exceptions.
There is an effect that explosives with the right pressure gradient can have, that pushes enough air outwards that it creates a volume behind the pressure wave which has less air pressure than the ambient air pressure. Once the blast wave moves far enough away then, ambient air rushes back to equalize the air pressure. This is a so-called implosion. In order for this to have an effect on the structure the blast would have to absolutely massive and , if the structure remained intact as the blast wave passed through it, the building would have experienced a significant UPWARDS acceleration, prior to its descent. Now, perhaps the moment of inertia would be so great that the structure would not move up due to the short lived nature of the blast. However, if that is so then the effect of the lowered air pressure within the structure would also be shortlived and have no effect on the structure either. As you say, it is ludicrous.

Now if you placed explosives, or rocket motors on the roof applying a downwards force on the structure, yes that could cause greater acceleration. There's an obvious problem with that scenario, because such a scenario would be frankly OBVIOUS in the videos.

Phase two of the 'truth' would then have to be that the videos were faked, after all one faction of 'truther'dom contends that videos are faked, faked, faked, all and sundry are all faked. That is beyond ludicrous and into the realm of insanity.

IMHO of course.

 

[david.watts]

Plumber done and gone. Internet back up. I should be able to spend much more time here. Thanks for everyone's patience. First, I will try to answer a few outstanding (meaning 'not yet addressed' AND 'excellent') questions and pose a few myself.

BTW, I am learning a lot here and appreciate the work a lot of you have done. I am sure I will learn more as things go forward. My fault that things turned a bit sideways last evening or early morning.

 

[JSanderO]

If you want to understand how 7wtc came down have a look at these slides. Not what NIST claims but neither a CD scenario. Yea column 79 had to have collapsed but it was neither the cause nor the start of the collapse. That would have been below 79 (fl 13) down in the load transfer structures. NISTians don't buy this, but that's Ok... their theory is based on assumptions and models and is essentially no "better" than TTF... also based on assumptions.

 

[ozeco41]

I wonder if he will propose, ala the standoffish Bilbo, that explosives caused over 'g'. Such a ludicrous proposition given the mass of the building and the amount of explosives required to produce such an effect.

The other, possibly more common heresy, about explosives it the idea that explosives could throw those big "outflier" beams that stuck into buildings hundreds of feet distant.

It is well nigh impossible to perform that trick - throwing big lumps of steel - using explosives unless there are specially built blast containment devices. i.e. something akin to a gun barrel.

And that trick is impossible with "high" explosives as used to cut steel. (it would cut the "gun barrel")


PS Posted for d.watts interest - it's been said many times on the forum so everyone else should know it.