'What about building 7'?

[MileHighMadness]

Guys...don't feel the troll. Just like Richard Gage, he's doesn't even believe his own B.S.

 

[GlennB]

Yeah...



... Just gonna leave that here.

Carry on.

Thanks for that. MM will, presumably, have to claim that he was 'got at' to change his story.

 

[tsig]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

Can you show us any CD's that fell at free fall acceleration?

 

[tsig]

Hello again, To Seymour Butz: I'm sorry that you took it so hard. I honestly don't want to insult anyone because we can all learn from all points of view but that may not stop me from being brutal with the truth. I would never call you a “brainwashed moron”, you are certainly not a moron because you are showing an interest in 9/11 truth by merely being here. That's a lot more advanced than some others who have no interest at all. Brainwashed is something that can happen to any of us, we can only try to avoid it by being open to the possibility that it has happened to us by changing our frame of reference and examining things from a different perspective to see if things look different or still the same. Pan-determined is one way of expressing that.
You criticize my knowledge of physics but don't offer yours to contradict it. Can you explain how a building can accelerate downwards at “g”without controlled demolition? Go on, have a go! Show us your knowledge of physics please. Go ahead.
To Spanx: I'm not trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job yet, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. I would like you to ponder this fact or disprove it. Thank you Sir.
To DGM: You are not “assumed clueless”, you are here and so you have an interest and you can learn, as we all can, me included, from the debate.
To LSSB: Thank you for being scientific, I like it that way because it helps lead us toward the truth. Yes, free-fall is the state of an object falling only under the effect of the force of gravity, without any resistance. Strictly, it is in a vacuum to avoid air resistance but I'm trying to keep it simple as the air resistance is slight in the first 2 seconds for lumps of concrete and steel.
I find it very funny this theory of the shell of the building going faster than “g”. There would have to be an elastic effect involved. The interior falls at “g”, then the exterior suddenly decides it must catch up so it goes “pow” and zooms down trying to catch up with its own innards as if it was attached by elastic. Sounds like a comic theory. Have you seen that in the NIST report?
To Jay Utah: I would never call you a “brainwashed moron”, Those were Seymour Butz's words not mine. You are certainly not a moron because you are showing an interest in 9/11 truth by merely being here.
Newton didn't do particle physics in 1687, that concept came much later when we discovered the atom was composed of particles closer to early 20th century. Referring to Newtons 3rd law,“what Newton actually formulated" is this: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" Can I say it any clearer? You say: "At least we know who your physics teacher is". No, I didn't say that. Mazzucco is a researcher and film maker. I learn t my physics first by observation as a child who pushed his milk bottle off the high chair to see how fast it fell, then later in school, then later as a motor engineering student, then later as a professional flying instructor and pilot.
Thank you, I'm honored by your interest Sir.

Did that milk bottle fall at free fall acceleration?

 

[Sabrina]

See, this is what gets me about Realtruthseeker's posts; he has access here, in this very thread, to at least two individuals who received degrees in physics and use the principles they learned on pretty much a daily basis in their jobs, and he handwaves that away while offering the information of a FILMMAKER as a rebuttal.

The fact that he cannot see the sheer wrongness of that makes me weep for humanity as a whole.

 

[JayUtah]

...and he handwaves that away while offering the information of a FILMMAKER as a rebuttal.

The filmmaker is telling him what he wants to hear, so automatically he's the credible one. I find it very difficult to believe that as a "motor engineering student," if that was in fact an actual engineering curriculum, he wouldn't have had first-year mechanics and wouldn't have been immediately introduced to how Newton really formulated his work. There is the simplified Newtonian mechanics taught in high schools etc., and then there is the broad spectrum of Newton's work as understood by the professionals who rely upon it and those who continued to formalize, refine, and correct Newton's understanding of mechanics, materials, and the basis of modern engineering.

Newton's "particles," when sewn together as a solid chunk of, say, steel still act Newtonianly amongst themselves, but in the large scale reveal such behavior as elasticity and plasticity. Newton understood that behavior and formulated it quantitatively. His "particles," when swimming around together as a liquid or a gas, interact with each other in Newtonian fashion. But that doesn't negate the Navier-Stokes formulations for fluid behavior, or even the related earlier work of Euler. The visible behavior of things made up of Newton's particles don't -- in their aggregation -- display pure Newtonian motion as simplistically put forth by the three laws of motion.

Steel frameworks under various loads and subjected to various impulses from the outside are just the sort of compositions Newton envisioned when he first quantified mechanics into the rudiments of usable engineering. The motions described by these members -- or rather, by points along these members -- are not universally governed by solely the three elementary laws. The expectation that they would do so is exactly the sort of oversimplification a layman would make.

In demanding that our "theories" have to obey Newton's third law (i.e., the poster's simplistic understanding of it), he's placing the real problem (i.e., that layman's simplistic understanding) beyond the realm of scrutiny. He's attempting to limit the rebuttals to those that fit his initial assumptions without admitting it may be his initial assumptions that are wrong.

 

[Spanx]

To Spanx: I'm not trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job yet, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. I would like you to ponder this fact or disprove it. Thank you Sir.

I'm looking forward to when you start proving 9/11 was an inside job. You will be the first.

 

[jaydeehess]

Would MM or realts care to see videos of falling objects acelkerating faster than g.

Fairly simple set ups that , while the may or may not directly apply to WTC7, certainly indicate that Newtonian physics applies in strict sense, only to the particles he described and not to complex systems of connected elements.

 

[beachnut]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

Why have you fallen for 911 truth lies in the 13th year of zero evidence. I bet you showed up this morning to post, and what happened, you forgot to get the evidence to support what must be a boatload of Gish Gallop.

If you examine your claims, you will find all you have is hearsay, and opinions. Look up hearsay, and opinions.

Since you are an instructor pilot, you should be armed with the knowledge to debunk pilots for truth, and the idiots claims Robert Balsamo makes.

What is your evidence, list it, and defend it.

 

[000063]

Hello DGM, all I'm saying so far is: “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”.
Would you like to debate that please with your superior physics knowledge. I can't wait!
Thank you.

It's funny, but Truthers have been repeatedly challenged to provide actual examples of known CDs reaching free-fall speeds.

Not one, IIRC, has ever provided any.

Would you like to support that claim with yours? I'll even give you a hint, when you say "near", wouldn't that indicate there was in fact some resistance? Are you prepared to support how this amount would differ from a natural gravitational collapse? You are aware the majority force in a CD is gravity?

Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"?

I can't wait. (actually I can, no "truther" has supported this to date).

Everyone here except RTS already knows that "near free-fall" is a preemptive No True Scotsman to give them wriggle room when it inevitably turns out that it didn't hit free-fall.

 

[DGM]

Everyone here except RTS already knows that "near free-fall" is a preemptive No True Scotsman to give them wriggle room when it inevitably turns out that it didn't hit free-fall.

...or when it can be shown to exceed it. (that's a real tough one for "truthers")

 

[TJM]

Thanks for that. MM will, presumably, have to claim that he was 'got at' to change his story.

You're welcome.

No, it will be ignored - truthers don't like it when their prophets speak against the belief system. Mr. Hess has been, ever so quietly, kicked to curb, never to be spoken of again.

 

[pgimeno]

It's funny, but Truthers have been repeatedly challenged to provide actual examples of known CDs reaching free-fall speeds.

Not one, IIRC, has ever provided any.

Well, there's this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7325451#post7325451

But that's just the corner, and the mechanism that results in g or faster than g seems to be the same as in that famous golf ball video with the hinged plank. Obviously the whole façade doesn't fall as a block at that speed.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, there's this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7325451#post7325451

But that's just the corner, and the mechanism that results in g or faster than g seems to be the same as in that famous golf ball video with the hinged plank. Obviously the whole façade doesn't fall as a block at that speed.

While the hinged plank is an example of faster than g in a more complex system than Newton's individula particles, faster than in that system results only when the angle is around 22 degrees above horz.

OTOH it IS an example how truthers can be so very wrong invoking simple linear Newtonian physics.

There is another example of faster than g . This one involves a set up in which a chain ladder with stiff "rungs" that are alternatingly tilted one way they the other. As i believe it was explained: When it falls the first rung's lower end hits, transfers some of the force of its hit into rotation of the other end thus pulling on the other chain. That side then sees the next rung lower end hit and pull down on the opposite side. The extra tugs from the rungs results in the acelleration of the chains to be greater than g.

When I am not posting from my phone I'll see if I can find the vid.

At any rate these two simple systems prove that it is quite possible to have other forces contributing to the acelleration of the facade or parts of the facade.

 

[waypastvne]

When I am not posting from my phone I'll see if I can find the vid.

http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/fallingchains/Falling_Chain_experiments.html

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
.

Had there been a progressive total vertical failure, the building would have tilted and fallen towards the side that initially started failing (presumably the east side).

Clearly this did not happen!oh MM, CLEARLY it did.

The first visible result of the collapse is a failure that results in the EPH falling in. This very much suggests that column 79 failed.
What happens subsequent to that is the development of the 'kink' in the north facade and the tilting of the sections east and west of that line towards this initial line of failure.
In addition, at about the same time as the tilting towards a column 79 line of failure, the rooftop structures west of the EPH then begin falling in. This highly suggests a progression of core failure. The section of the building west of the kink then falls to the south, suggesting a tilt in that direction, ie. towards the core failure.

Did MM ever address the fact that WTC7 did behave as he says it should have?

http://archive.org/download/Michael...MichaelChan_southeastviewofWTC7before9-11.jpg.
Pre911 southeast corner of wtc7 showing pedestrian walkway into #7. post Office building is to the right of this picture. No vehicle ramp.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95e_1319603090&comments=1
Video of Jennings at window above vehicle ramp.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/fig-5-15.jpg
View of WTC7 from the north with Verizon building on the right. Vehicle ramp is in the NW corner of the building, thus so was Jennings when at the window.

Perhaps MM can describe the view of the towers from windows on the north side of WTC7 for us.

Jennings at the NE corner? The video shows people standing at the corner of WTC7 talking to Hess or Jennings. To the right is another building,, the Verizon. If the camera were looking south at the NE corner the other building, the P.O., would be on the left.

These people and the camera are also just out from the vehicle ramp which is at the NW of WTC7.

You ask why I showed the SE corner of WTC7. Standing at the SE corner and looking at #7 you would have the post office to the right but the video of him at the window cannot be at the SE corner because there's no ramp there and it would have the remains of the walkway. Obviously they werent at the SW corner since that was gouged out.

Now you say they were at the NE corner. I show thats wrong but.........My whole point is that no one can see the towers from any window on the north face.

The video contains many stop/start of recording ( perhaps edits in post but it looks like raw video). Yes, the Fitterman is seen in one of these clips but starting at about 1:50 we see Hess at the window, camera pans fast down to street level and we see the vehicle ramp and, still with no cut in the video, we then see the corner of WTC7 in such location as to indicate that this is at the NW corner, not the NE.

That is consistent with Hess saying he was looking north and west. It is consistent with the two of them being in the west stairwell, near the location of the SW corner destruction.
Hess says no explosion. He says the stairwell was dusty/smokey THEN the lights went out and the building shook for about ten seconds and the stairwell filled with a great deal more dust and or smoke, all of which I indicates that this problem in the stairwell occurred when WTC1 fell. Of course in the video the street is full of dust and papers, cars are on fire in the clips preceding the final one Hess at the window at 1:50.

 

[pgimeno]

While the hinged plank is an example of faster than g in a more complex system than Newton's individula particles, faster than in that system results only when the angle is around 22 degrees above horz.

Where does the 22 come from? In the OP of this thread you mention at most 35°.

From eq.10 in the paper linked from your post, I obtain 35.264something° as the maximum angle, but any angle within minus that and that will exhibit over-g, including 0° as in this building's case (ETA: and it's maximized at 0°).

At any rate these two simple systems prove that it is quite possible to have other forces contributing to the acelleration of the facade or parts of the facade.

Absolutely.

 

[jaydeehess]

Where does the 22 come from? In the OP of this thread you mention at most 35°.

From eq.10 in the paper linked from your post, I obtain 35.264something° as the maximum angle, but any angle within minus that and that will exhibit over-g, including 0° as in this building's case (ETA: and it's maximized at 0°).


Absolutely.

my bad, the 22 was off the top of my head. Point was that the tilt of the full height structure, being close to vertical, would not produce faster than g.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/fallingchains/Falling_Chain_experiments.html

That is the one, thanks. Over g despite Newton.( well actually in full compliance with Newtonian physics, just not with the AE911T parsing of Newtonian physics)

 

[swright777]

Just so you know, I do not reply to pomposity.

Carry on.

So you're both making a personal attack and refusing to answer my questions. Gotcha.

I just checked my dictionary. Intelligent ≠ pompous (still). Articulate ≠ pompous (also still). Seems like that reply by MM was just a cheezy dodge (again).