Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[ozeco41]

Internet back up.

You're not the first. I let my domain name registration expire at last renewal cycle. Still had Internet but lost email till I engaged Mk 1 Inbuilt Grey Cell Module and worked out what was wrong.

 

[david.watts]

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:

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.


jaydee, you asked the following: 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?

To be honest, I had not before heard of "over g" re:wtc7. My first thought was, is this true and how could that possibly be? But, I have seen it referred to quite a lot since I joined you. So, I will take your word for it.

1. "the acceleration of points on its face ramp up to a value greater than 'g'" -- So that I understand, does "acceleration of points" refer to previous posts made about, for example, points on a spinning beam where at moments those points are spinning downward so they are over g, yet the fall of the entire beam is at net free fall? Or, is the entire beam actually exceeding 'g'?
(note: you refer to "points on its face" -- face for wtc7 would be the N side? --so you are probably not talking about something rotating.)

2. "some other mechanism or effect is in play" -- I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by "or at least in the measurement of that acceleration." Are you referring to the measuring device or something else. Just not sure what you mean.

 

[ozeco41]

@david.watts
I'll leave it for jaydeehess to respond since you seem to want to select who you ask.

Remember that I posted a first stage of explanation of some of the matters you now raise post 393 of this thread

Take care that you don't try to get too far ahead. The physics is explainable but it is not grade school level stuff.

 

[david.watts]

Clarification: Regarding the question I asked: 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.”
Agree or Disagree?

It was not an attempt to paint anyone into a corner. I wanted to see if we could all agree that the basic premise is true, at least for building 'x.' But it became more involved than I had wanted and took much longer than expected; partly due to my having to be away for a somewhat lengthy time. But just as much it was due to some taking time to decide -- and getting into tangential (I think "tangential" works) areas. Anyway, after too long, a 'starting point' was in place. And really, all I was trying to do is establish that point. The reason being, that i think that will come up often going forward as it is central to what we are discussing. And if we did not agree on this, I believe that would greatly hinder making any progress.

 

[david.watts]

@david.watts
I'll leave it for jaydeehess to respond since you seem to want to select who you ask.

Remember that I posted a first stage of explanation of some of the matters you now raise post 393 of this thread

Take care that you don't try to get too far ahead. The physics is explainable but it is not grade school level stuff.

I no doubt have lost track on who said what, but jaydee asked directly that question. So I sent my answer and question directly back to jaydee.

 

[david.watts]

Is "over g" acceleration established? Or, is it a maybe? Again, "over g" for 7 is new to me.

 

[beachnut]

Clarification: Regarding the question I asked: 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.”
Agree or Disagree?

It was not an attempt to paint anyone into a corner. I wanted to see if we could all agree that the basic premise is true, at least for building 'x.' But it became more involved than I had wanted and took much longer than expected; partly due to my having to be away for a somewhat lengthy time. But just as much it was due to some taking time to decide -- and getting into tangential (I think "tangential" works) areas. Anyway, after too long, a 'starting point' was in place. And really, all I was trying to do is establish that point. The reason being, that i think that will come up often going forward as it is central to what we are discussing. And if we did not agree on this, I believe that would greatly hinder making any progress.

You are essentially 12 years behind. No CD on 911, and you can't back it in because you can't do physics. Please source the law of least resistance, and explain how you expect things to go sideways in a gravity field?

Take a look at post 1, the OP, the topic.

Progress? There was no CD, there were 2 planes and fires. You are going back-wards. WTC 7 burned all day, free-fall is not proof of CD.

Progress? You have failed to retract the silly claims you have, like all the concrete was crushed into dust. You have to retract your old failed lies and fantasies before you can move forward, and publish the fraud of 911 truth at your web site of woo, where anyone can spread lies freely and without thinking or doing real research. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-Dilemma--WTC7--NIS-by-David-Watts-080207-490.html

OPED NEWS, you need to post your discover 911 truth is fraud before you can make progress - the majority of the people here figure out 911 the day after. And those who were 911 truth believers, are now leaders in critical thinking and reality based research. When can you refute your own work, and make progress to catch up the 12 years you were stuck in woo?

 

[ozeco41]

Is "over g" acceleration established? Or, is it a maybe? Again, "over g" for 7 is new to me.

It is established to satisfaction of many of the members here including me.

The summary history was:
1) The truth movement has established their own "meme" that free fall is a feature of CD and claims that CD does not occur with "natural collapses"
2) That belief is false and it is the OP topic of the thread.
3) For very simple systems complete removal of supports will allow the thing supported to fall at free fall acceleration (nearly - there is air resistance but it is usually too small to matter.) So that is fact one and for simple systems.
4) that is where the truth movement originally latched on - forgetting that anything can remove the supports - not only CD - plus reality that CD rarely causes free fall anyway - so another factor causing half truth confusions.

THEN
5) NIST reported the collapse of WTC7 with its explanation and did not mention free fall. We don't know why NIST did not comment BUT reality is that no competent engineer or physicist would regard free fall as worthy of comment in the context of chaotic collapse of a building. It is to be expected somewhere in the chaos.
6) Truther mediocre physicist D Chandler did some video measurements and measured (by relatively crude methods and approx) free fall so he "challenged" NIST and NIST responded identifying a period of free fall on one part of the north façade.
7) Chandler et all trumpeted that as if they had "forced" NIST to "admit" free fall.
8) There was extended discussion of the issue here #
9) Member femr2 is arguably the best measurer/researcher of motion on WTC collapse
10) femr2 has measured the specific bit of WTC7 North façade collapse with precision far better than NIST or Chandler and many of us including me are satisfied that one section of that façade fell at over "G" acceleration for a brief period.#

11) Meanwhile member Chris Mohr had engaged R Gage in public debate and they agreed to set up a web site listing both sides of the debate. Multiple points - over 100 from memory.#
12) "Over G" for WTC7 was one of the points raised. I was one of the physics advisors to ChrisMohr and suggested a mechanism for how "overG" could occur.#
13) Member LSSBB (??) has recently (IIRC) commented on that type of mechanism but placed into the specific context of WTC7#
14) Earlier I spoke of "simple systems" with supports removed - the sort of thing you have been describing. Most of the reluctance - myself and others - to easily agree with your scenario is because it aint that simple once the "system" becomes "more complicated"

Hence my post 393 offer to assist you work through it.

And my suggestion that you take it one step at a time - trying to take on the full 3D FreeBody stuff within the WTC collapse context - is ....err... rather heavy going.
...and it is a lot easier in three or four steps. I'll post you a Step 2 exercise later tonight AU - about 10 hours from now.

I don't have time now but will dig up some links to key points marked #

....some other members may assist and beat me to it.


Pleeeeease....

 

[jaydeehess]

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.


jaydee, you asked the following: 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?

To be honest, I had not before heard of "over g" re:wtc7. My first thought was, is this true and how could that possibly be? But, I have seen it referred to quite a lot since I joined you. So, I will take your word for it.

1. "the acceleration of points on its face ramp up to a value greater than 'g'" -- So that I understand, does "acceleration of points" refer to previous posts made about, for example, points on a spinning beam where at moments those points are spinning downward so they are over g, yet the fall of the entire beam is at net free fall? Or, is the entire beam actually exceeding 'g'?
(note: you refer to "points on its face" -- face for wtc7 would be the N side? --so you are probably not talking about something rotating.)

2. "some other mechanism or effect is in play" -- I agree, but I am not sure what you mean by "or at least in the measurement of that acceleration." Are you referring to the measuring device or something else. Just not sure what you mean.

"Points" refers to the fact that the quantified acceleration was arrived at by graphing the position of various locations, ie. points, on the north side of the structure.

I am talking about structure that is rotating, in this case the points bring monitored moving both down and away from the camera.

As for effects on the measurement as opposed to physical effects on parameters, that would refer to things such as frame rate stability, margin of error in pixel location, etc.

Check Chandler's data, NIST's graph, or search for femr2's thread concerning his study of the fsll of WTC 7. All show that acceleration was only 'g' as one point on a graph that shows a ramp up of acceleration through 'g' and then a reduction again through 'g' to eventual zero.

However, I note that while you cajoled us to stick strictly to your hypothetical scenario and complained when others insisted on relating it to WTV7, you had no problem doing exactly what you complained of.


In one post I specifically resisted relating your scenario to WTC 7 while answering your query. I request the same from you.

 

[LSSBB]

Is "over g" acceleration established? Or, is it a maybe? Again, "over g" for 7 is new to me.

If you read my OP for the thread, you will see a link to the femr2 thread. Femr2 and others performed extensive analysis showing over g probably happened for instances. Measurement uncertainty prohibits exact determination for anyone, including NIST and Chandler. NIST's own graph shows over g, by the way.

 

[david.watts]

To jaydeehess: You explained things well and I understand. Thx

And you are correct. I did wander a bit/maybe 'more than a bit' away from my hypothetical. Well I tried, but I guess I didn't try hard enough. Your point is well taken.

I will stick to wtc7 as you requested. Please remind me if I don't. ty

 

[david.watts]

If you read my OP for the thread, you will see a link to the femr2 thread. Femr2 and others performed extensive analysis showing over g probably happened for instances. Measurement uncertainty prohibits exact determination for anyone, including NIST and Chandler. NIST's own graph shows over g, by the way.

It sounds like 'over' g only happened momentarily and maybe more than once. To me, while over g is curious, it seems like it may in fact not necessarily be a fact. Because I have seen it mentioned numerous times here, it seems to be at least a somewhat (maybe very) important deal. Is it?

I will have to check out the Femr2 thread.

 

[david.watts]

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

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

I absolutely get it.

Another is, a pilot meets a girl and they go on a date. After talking for 2 hours or so, the pilot says, "well, enough about me. Let's talk about airplanes."

 

[david.watts]

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.

Good point. It has been a bit of an effort to get to this point. Some my fault, but not entirely. This might help explain things (my #524):

Clarification: Regarding the question I asked: 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.”
Agree or Disagree?

It was not an attempt to paint anyone into a corner. I wanted to see if we could all agree that the basic premise is true, at least for building 'x.' But it became more involved than I had wanted and took much longer than expected; partly due to my having to be away for a somewhat lengthy time. But just as much it was due to some taking time to decide -- and getting into tangential (I think "tangential" works) areas. Anyway, after too long, a 'starting point' was in place. And really, all I was trying to do is establish that point. The reason being, that i think that will come up often going forward as it is central to what we are discussing. And if we did not agree on this, I believe that would greatly hinder making any progress.

 

[ozeco41]

It sounds like 'over' g only happened momentarily and maybe more than once. To me, while over g is curious, it seems like it may in fact not necessarily be a fact. Because I have seen it mentioned numerous times here, it seems to be at least a somewhat (maybe very) important deal. Is it?..

Not important at all EXCEPT that truthers make a big deal about free fall on the false premise that FreeFall ALWAYS and ONLY means CD. That is male bovine faeces. (The forum doesn't like Aussie words starting with "B" )

"OverG" is merely a sideline EXCEPT that when first mentioned it was denied and pushed the boundaries of comprehension for truthers and some debunkers. Other than that - forget it.



ooops:
EXCEPT it is the topic of the thread.

 

[david.watts]

Not important at all EXCEPT that truthers make a big deal about free fall on the false premise that FreeFall ALWAYS and ONLY means CD. That is male bovine faeces. (The forum doesn't like Aussie words starting with "B" )

"OverG" is merely a sideline EXCEPT that when first mentioned it was denied and pushed the boundaries of comprehension for truthers and some debunkers. Other than that - forget it.



ooops:
EXCEPT it is the topic of the thread.

Very good. Does this make sense as to 'greater than g' : I have seen it here -- pretty sure by you and at least one other -- that in the context of the NIST explanation of the 7 collapse, an 'over g' occurrence could possibly be due to a twisting/torquing effect. If so, could not the same effect occur during a CD? Twisting/torquing is not integral to either a fire induced collapse or a CD, I wouldn't think. Or actually, ANY kind of collapse.

 

[beachnut]

Good point. It has been a bit of an effort to get to this point. Some my fault, but not entirely. This might help explain things (my #524):

Clarification: Regarding the question I asked: 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.”
Agree or Disagree?

It was not an attempt to paint anyone into a corner. I wanted to see if we could all agree that the basic premise is true, at least for building 'x.' But it became more involved than I had wanted and took much longer than expected; partly due to my having to be away for a somewhat lengthy time. But just as much it was due to some taking time to decide -- and getting into tangential (I think "tangential" works) areas. Anyway, after too long, a 'starting point' was in place. And really, all I was trying to do is establish that point. The reason being, that i think that will come up often going forward as it is central to what we are discussing. And if we did not agree on this, I believe that would greatly hinder making any progress.

Faster than g. Physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE


Just one way object might appear to be faster than g. Not sure why 911 truth can't use physics. Maybe you have a problem because you use pilots for truth as a source of the lies you supported in the past, they can't do physics too.

The premise is not true. Unable to debunk the simples lies like below, how can you grasp a gravity collapse. You don't believe a gravity collapse is capable of much. Or have you refuted this? Where is the post which takes this away?

David Watts - 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.

No mechanism? Only E=mgh in the towers, and that is equal to over a 130 TONS of TNT. oops - maybe you can retract all the nonsense from five years ago to catch up to reality before you can understand free-fall, and how it relates to WTC 7, and 911. Progress?

Skip ahead, what is next? The premise is not true.

OMG, you are trying to back in CD, you can't see you posted nonsense 5 years ago. Darn. A Gish Gallop is coming slower than free-fall. How long does it take you to present the whole show? Is there a goal?

The real premise is

Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
...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.

What do you have for this, and how does the not true premise relate?

 

[david.watts]

Quote:
David Watts - 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.

beachnut: No mechanism? Only E=mgh in the towers, and that is equal to over a 130 TONS of TNT. oops - maybe you can retract all the nonsense from five years ago to catch up to reality before you can understand free-fall, and how it relates to WTC 7, and 911. Progress?

I started to ask a question back but I caught myself. We are trying to stick to building 7 only. Now, if I (or anyone) can show that concrete had pulverized during 7's collapse, we can get to that later.

 

[beachnut]

Quote:
David Watts - 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.

beachnut: No mechanism? Only E=mgh in the towers, and that is equal to over a 130 TONS of TNT. oops - maybe you can retract all the nonsense from five years ago to catch up to reality before you can understand free-fall, and how it relates to WTC 7, and 911. Progress?

I started to ask a question back but I caught myself. We are trying to stick to building 7 only. Now, if I (or anyone) can show that concrete had pulverized during 7's collapse, we can get to that later.

You can't debunk the easy stuff, you don't understand your own premise limitations and why it is not true. You can't debunk the CD claims with evidence.

And.
The real premise is

Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
...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.

What do you have for this, and how does your premise relate?

You can't answer simple questions.

 

[david.watts]

ozeco: The summary history was:
1) The truth movement has established their own "meme" that free fall is a feature of CD and claims that CD does not occur with "natural collapses"
2) That belief is false and it is the OP topic of the thread.
3) For very simple systems complete removal of supports will allow the thing supported to fall at free fall acceleration (nearly - there is air resistance but it is usually too small to matter.) So that is fact one and for simple systems.
4) that is where the truth movement originally latched on - forgetting that anything can remove the supports - not only CD - plus reality that CD rarely causes free fall anyway - so another factor causing half truth confusions.

THEN
5) NIST reported the collapse of WTC7 with its explanation and did not mention free fall. We don't know why NIST did not comment BUT reality is that no competent engineer or physicist would regard free fall as worthy of comment in the context of chaotic collapse of a building. It is to be expected somewhere in the chaos.
6) Truther mediocre physicist D Chandler did some video measurements and measured (by relatively crude methods and approx) free fall so he "challenged" NIST and NIST responded identifying a period of free fall on one part of the north façade.
7) Chandler et all trumpeted that as if they had "forced" NIST to "admit" free fall.
8) There was extended discussion of the issue here #
9) Member femr2 is arguably the best measurer/researcher of motion on WTC collapse
10) femr2 has measured the specific bit of WTC7 North façade collapse with precision far better than NIST or Chandler and many of us including me are satisfied that one section of that façade fell at over "G" acceleration for a brief period.#

11) Meanwhile member Chris Mohr had engaged R Gage in public debate and they agreed to set up a web site listing both sides of the debate. Multiple points - over 100 from memory.#
12) "Over G" for WTC7 was one of the points raised. I was one of the physics advisors to ChrisMohr and suggested a mechanism for how "overG" could occur.#
13) Member LSSBB (??) has recently (IIRC) commented on that type of mechanism but placed into the specific context of WTC7#
14) Earlier I spoke of "simple systems" with supports removed - the sort of thing you have been describing. Most of the reluctance - myself and others - to easily agree with your scenario is because it aint that simple once the "system" becomes "more complicated"



Your 14 points provides a great context for proceeding from here when discussing free fall. I now know what has been discussed at length and what conclusions have been drawn. After a quick review, I do have a few places where I disagree and will bring them up. If you and others think this thread is worthwhile, its a good thing I don't agree with everything as there wouldn't be much to talk about. Even the weather would be off topic.