9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[DiveCon]

"Truthtards"?

For pete's sake..

You guys are truly loony.

trooftards fits better
they clearly arent interested in "truth"

 

[DiveCon]

Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.

you Bush dupes are the tin foil hatters.people like physics exist and myself dont have the logic that because corrupt government agencys and the corporate controlled media said it happened this way,that makes it automatically true and all these architiects and engineers and their field of experts doesnt mater.

Bush dupe? That's rich! I'm a libertarian.

in rimjob's pathetic world, anyone that doesnt buy into his delusions is a bush dupe

 

[kwc57]

Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.

this is a serious board?
really?

Welllll, no........but compared to tin foil hat conspiracy theories.........

 

[Patriot911]

I have seen hairs and paper stick to cooling welds

cooling welds do not equal molten steel as claimed. The flash point of paper is 662F. That means the paper would have spontaniously combusted long before it ever got close to molten steel.

A weld is not molten metal ?...lol...it rapidly froms a llight crust of slag that things can stick to

You must have forgotten that key word cooling. :roll: Why can't truthtards be honest with ANYTHING they discuss? Seriously. So now we're suppose to pretend a cooling weld is comparable to a rather sizeable "pool" of what truthtards claim is molten steel as far as heat output? Do you go around lighting matches and pretending because they don't weaken metal that an office fire can't? Wait.... I've seen truthtards try that comparison.

 

[SFC Ollie]

cooling welds do not equal molten steel as claimed. The flash point of paper is 662F. That means the paper would have spontaniously combusted long before it ever got close to molten steel.

A weld is not molten metal ?...lol...it rapidly froms a llight crust of slag that things can stick to

You must have forgotten that key word cooling. :roll: Why can't truthtards be honest with ANYTHING they discuss? Seriously. So now we're suppose to pretend a cooling weld is comparable to a rather sizeable "pool" of what truthtards claim is molten steel as far as heat output? Do you go around lighting matches and pretending because they don't weaken metal that an office fire can't? Wait.... I've seen truthtards try that comparison.

I believe he is attempting to say that the paper got there after the metal supposedly was cooling down. I guess that's when someone stuck all that rebar in there too......

 

[candycorn]

Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.

You think it's bad here...go to War On You: News without Corporate Views and look at their forum. Hell, even I look smart compared to those guys.

 

[DiveCon]

Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.

this is a serious board?
really?

Welllll, no........but compared to tin foil hat conspiracy theories.........

point given


LOL

 

[PhysicsExist]

this is a serious board?
really?

Welllll, no........but compared to tin foil hat conspiracy theories.........

point given


LOL

i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Care to address these like promised?

 

[PhysicsExist]

So nothing was in free fall.

Thanks.



Fail

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

 

[slackjawed]

Welllll, no........but compared to tin foil hat conspiracy theories.........

point given


LOL

[/color]

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Care to address these like promised?

Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....

 

[slackjawed]

So nothing was in free fall.

Thanks.



Fail

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

I'll take gravity for 1000 chuck!

 

[PhysicsExist]

point given


LOL

[/color]

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded



REFERENCES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Care to address these like promised?

Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....

Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf

 

[slackjawed]

[/color]

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.



Care to address these like promised?

Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....

Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf

one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.

 

[DiveCon]

[/color]

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.



Care to address these like promised?

Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....

Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf

those are nothing but paranoid delusions, there was NO explosive residue found
PERIOD

still waiting for you to post a FACT

 

[PhysicsExist]

Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....

Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf

one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.

NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Care to address these facts, and stop saying they are truther lies?

 

[boedicca]

i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact

Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008. The most important part of NIST’s report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse. In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NIST’s investigation:

“NIST’s so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model. The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened… The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results you’re looking for is called selection bias. If you think about it, NIST’s methodology is explicitly based on selection bias. Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesn’t show what actually did happen.”


Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded

The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse. Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:

“One fact we do know about NIST’s model is it does not allow for free fall. The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors. Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible. There’s nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component. After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, ‘free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.’ Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”


Although NIST’s model is false, based on its failure to reproduce the observed collapse, it cannot be falsified because NIST did not release its modeling data. Mr. Chandler explains:

“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”

REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, “Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage,” Washington

Stop running away from the facts. Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.

Care to address these like promised?

Addressing foaming at the mouth conspiracy theories is a futile act.

Just frelling stating the obvious.

 

[slackjawed]

Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf

one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.

NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Care to address these facts, and stop saying they are truther lies?

nope, they are twoofer lies. no facts, just lies. nothing to address here folks, go about your lives and business. no facts here

 

[slackjawed]

I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults.

I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.

 

[PhysicsExist]

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults.

I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.

one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.

NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Care to address these facts, and stop saying they are truther lies?

nope, they are twoofer lies. no facts, just lies. nothing to address here folks, go about your lives and business. no facts here

Don't fear the truth.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults.

I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.

the funny thing is, troofers never post facts
yet they claim they do
must be the paranoid delusions getting in the way