Choose your "Facts" about what happened on 911

[DiveCon]

Well, what do you know? PEchickenshit did it again.

yup
shocking, isnt it?

 

[Mr. Jones]

God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong.
You are dismissed. Go tell your mother she wants you.

In all seriousness, no one on here has been able to dispel the probability that the likelihood of a CD was used on those 3 buildings that day, especially taking into account how fast they fell.There is an alternate and more plausible explanation for what happened instead of the absurd story you need to believe. But then you would be faced with a dilemma you are not equipped to handle I guess.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong.
You are dismissed. Go tell your mother she wants you.

In all seriousness, no one on here has been able to dispel the probability that the likelihood of a CD was used on those 3 buildings that day, especially taking into account how fast they fell.There is an alternate and more plausible explanation for what happened instead of the absurd story you need to believe. But then you would be faced with a dilemma you are not equipped to handle I guess.

So, step by step, what is this alternate explanation?

 

[Mr. Jones]

God you're stupid. I have shown you time after time that your precious website is wrong.
You are dismissed. Go tell your mother she wants you.

In all seriousness, no one on here has been able to dispel the probability that the likelihood of a CD was used on those 3 buildings that day, especially taking into account how fast they fell.There is an alternate and more plausible explanation for what happened instead of the absurd story you need to believe. But then you would be faced with a dilemma you are not equipped to handle I guess.

So, step by step, what is this alternate explanation?

Step by step, are you kidding? There's so much to put together to even begin to start, but I was referring to the destruction of the buildings, and when all is taken into account, the theory of CD is IMO more easily explained, but they positively can not go that route, at least not now. They could have in the very beginning though, that way all the witnesses saying they heard, felt, and saw explosions would not be a problem, or the time it took the buildings to collapse would be easily explained, they would still have to do some explaining as to who/how rigged it and how they got access and such and need some scape goats at the ready to throw under the bus, but the way it stands now they are looking like they lied and have to stick with what they say, even though it's crazy.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

In all seriousness, no one on here has been able to dispel the probability that the likelihood of a CD was used on those 3 buildings that day, especially taking into account how fast they fell.There is an alternate and more plausible explanation for what happened instead of the absurd story you need to believe. But then you would be faced with a dilemma you are not equipped to handle I guess.

So, step by step, what is this alternate explanation?

Step by step, are you kidding? There's so much to put together to even begin to start, but I was referring to the destruction of the buildings, and when all is taken into account, the theory of CD is IMO more easily explained, but they positively can not go that route, at least not now. They could have in the very beginning though, that way all the witnesses saying they heard, felt, and saw explosions would not be a problem, or the time it took the buildings to collapse would be easily explained, they would still have to do some explaining as to who/how rigged it and how they got access and such and need some scape goats at the ready to throw under the bus, but the way it stands now they are looking like they lied and have to stick with what they say, even though it's crazy.

I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.

My take is that the towers were extremely poorly designed, and that when the upper portion let go, the rest of the structure was unable to take the weight. Whoever decided that connecting the inner and outer columns by floor trusses connected by 4 bolts on each side should be taken somewhere and beaten to within an inch of their lives. And spray-on fireproofing??? That's just plain criminally negligent. They should have encased the trusses in concrete when they poured the floors.

 

[DiveCon]

So, step by step, what is this alternate explanation?

Step by step, are you kidding? There's so much to put together to even begin to start, but I was referring to the destruction of the buildings, and when all is taken into account, the theory of CD is IMO more easily explained, but they positively can not go that route, at least not now. They could have in the very beginning though, that way all the witnesses saying they heard, felt, and saw explosions would not be a problem, or the time it took the buildings to collapse would be easily explained, they would still have to do some explaining as to who/how rigged it and how they got access and such and need some scape goats at the ready to throw under the bus, but the way it stands now they are looking like they lied and have to stick with what they say, even though it's crazy.

I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.

My take is that the towers were extremely poorly designed, and that when the upper portion let go, the rest of the structure was unable to take the weight. Whoever decided that connecting the inner and outer columns by floor trusses connected by 4 bolts on each side should be taken somewhere and beaten to within an inch of their lives. And spray-on fireproofing??? That's just plain criminally negligent. They should have encased the trusses in concrete when they poured the floors.

it couldnt have taken the weight
the entire design of the building would have had to have been changed and it would have required a much larger core structure
and that would have taken the floor space away from the building to the point it wouldnt have been cost effective
since then new lighter weight types of concrete have been developed that make if possible to encase the steel for the fire protection, but doesnt increase the weight by the same factor

 

[Mr. Jones]

I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.

All true, and valid points. I've heard transformers explode and they are loud as hell, I've also seen a garage fire that had paint, and thinner etc blow, which were not as loud. I honestly think the loudest noise in that particular fire was the owners scream when his 440 6 pack 'Cuda was destroyed. But anyway, these folks description of the explosions, and the concussion they felt, taken together with the symmetrical collapse is just too much to ignore IMHO. Plus you got 3 buildings coming down the same way? I mean there are valid reasons to be skeptical and concerned. Plus the investigations were all fucked up, the put options, the flood of currency into the economy just prior to the attack, and scores of other coincidences and attachments people had....I just wish there was honesty in this world, it really bugs me that we can't trust our own government, and hope that this does not just fade away into history like other incidents..JFK etc.

My take is that the towers were extremely poorly designed, and that when the upper portion let go, the rest of the structure was unable to take the weight. Whoever decided that connecting the inner and outer columns by floor trusses connected by 4 bolts on each side should be taken somewhere and beaten to within an inch of their lives.

We differ here also. The bottom of the building was supporting the top half, and to cause a rapid onset of collapse all the way down in the short amount of time leads me to think the material had to be removed somehow, and there had to be a tremendous force or what they say is a jolt to overcome the bottom half's support. If the thing would have toppled, or a chunk fallen away, there might not be so much questioning, but you got people describing pop, pop, pop, and the things coming down in such short time? I just can't believe their version, and God knows I tried, I really have!

And spray-on fireproofing??? That's just plain criminally negligent. They should have encased the trusses in concrete when they poured the floors.

Isn't this what Christophera claims, that they were encased in concrete? I'll have to get to that page and brush up on it.
It is argued that the fires were too spread out, and could not have reached the temps required, nor at the critical points, at the same time to produce the collapse that occurred. Most of the fuel was burned up on impact, so you have to rely on scattered office fires with the intensity and at the correct locations. The fires would ignite in a given location and burn for a short time then move down the face of the tower, igniting a new area (NIST, 2004, p.11). This fire progression pattern means that areas of the towers were subject to heat from fires for only a short time period, not the entire time between impact and collapse. Incombustible gypsum and concrete dust created by the impacts would further slow fire development. Plus the ejection of debris with such force? I just highly question it, and don't think it could have fallen as it did without some "help".
I have hope that this will get resolved, and somehow the questions are answered, and coincidences explained, but I wont hold my breath, as I fear the corruption runs too deep, and there aren't many honest people left with the power or authority to take charge without being silenced somehow by blackmail or other ways.

The World Trade Center was a strong, over-built edifice, an award-winning design, and no amount of fudging can sidestep the facts. One investigator,and it seems like everyone in America EXCEPT structural engineers is seeking answers to the collapse,noted the 110 story towers, weighing 500,000 tons each, won many prestigious awards, from the VERY SAME ENGINEERS WHO NOW PROCLAIM ITS FLAWED DESIGN & FRAILTY! Nuts isn't it?

 

[DiveCon]

how do you explain that these "explosions" took place HOURS before the collapse?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I believe the witnesses who say they heard explosions, but I don't thinks they were hearing explosives. There are a lot of things that blow up in a fire that are not explosive charges. Transformers, computer monitors, battery backup systems, and compressed air tanks can all explode when heated.

All true, and valid points. I've heard transformers explode and they are loud as hell, I've also seen a garage fire that had paint, and thinner etc blow, which were not as loud. I honestly think the loudest noise in that particular fire was the owners scream when his 440 6 pack 'Cuda was destroyed. But anyway, these folks description of the explosions, and the concussion they felt, taken together with the symmetrical collapse is just too much to ignore IMHO. Plus you got 3 buildings coming down the same way? I mean there are valid reasons to be skeptical and concerned. Plus the investigations were all fucked up, the put options, the flood of currency into the economy just prior to the attack, and scores of other coincidences and attachments people had....I just wish there was honesty in this world, it really bugs me that we can't trust our own government, and hope that this does not just fade away into history like other incidents..JFK etc.

We differ here also. The bottom of the building was supporting the top half, and to cause a rapid onset of collapse all the way down in the short amount of time leads me to think the material had to be removed somehow, and there had to be a tremendous force or what they say is a jolt to overcome the bottom half's support. If the thing would have toppled, or a chunk fallen away, there might not be so much questioning, but you got people describing pop, pop, pop, and the things coming down in such short time? I just can't believe their version, and God knows I tried, I really have!

And spray-on fireproofing??? That's just plain criminally negligent. They should have encased the trusses in concrete when they poured the floors.

Isn't this what Christophera claims, that they were encased in concrete? I'll have to get to that page and brush up on it.
It is argued that the fires were too spread out, and could not have reached the temps required, nor at the critical points, at the same time to produce the collapse that occurred. Most of the fuel was burned up on impact, so you have to rely on scattered office fires with the intensity and at the correct locations. The fires would ignite in a given location and burn for a short time then move down the face of the tower, igniting a new area (NIST, 2004, p.11). This fire progression pattern means that areas of the towers were subject to heat from fires for only a short time period, not the entire time between impact and collapse. Incombustible gypsum and concrete dust created by the impacts would further slow fire development. Plus the ejection of debris with such force? I just highly question it, and don't think it could have fallen as it did without some "help".
I have hope that this will get resolved, and somehow the questions are answered, and coincidences explained, but I wont hold my breath, as I fear the corruption runs too deep, and there aren't many honest people left with the power or authority to take charge without being silenced somehow by blackmail or other ways.

First off, to get it out of the way, Christophera's contention is the the central core was a poured concrete core, re-enforced with 3", C-4 coated re-bar that was supplied and welded together by the Dept of Defense. He claims there were no steel core columns, and that what you see in construction photos is "elevator guide rail support steel". Since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about the twins, I hardly think you would agree with that.

What I'm saying is that the floor panels that connected the central core columns to the perimeter columns should have been built in such a way as to encase that trusses in the concrete they used. It would have prevented them from sagging when they were heated. But even that would not have kept the pitiful few bolts holding them to the columns from snapping when the weight of the upper floors fell on them.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I really wish the news helicopters were still in the air when the buildings collapsed. A lot of questions could have been answered that day if there had been state of the art news cameras filming from above. Detailed video might have shown how the building collapsed, or if they were brought down by CD. Instead, all we have is one measly photograph a cop took with a still camera, and even then all we see are the dust clouds.

And obviously there had to be pockets of intense heat, as evidenced in at least one case by the molten metal that ran out of the windows on one corner. Does that mean all of the fires were that hot? Of course not. Does it mean that they were hot enough to melt the steel? No, that's just stupid. But I think they were hot enough to cause steel expansion, which would have severed the truss connections at those stupid little bolts, and cause the inner and outer columns to lose their horizontal support. On the sections where that happened, the outer columns would have been prime areas to shoot out and away from the buildings when the upper mass hit them. And it's my opinion the upper mass fell because some of the central steel columns gave out when they lost the support of the failed trusses.

All in all, I think the collapse of the towers was more an effect of poorly designed, lowest bidder, shoddy construction, and were an accident waiting to happen. They probably would have fallen a lot sooner if the hijackers had hit them lower on the buildings, and had that much more mass sitting on the damaged areas.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The World Trade Center was a strong, over-built edifice, an award-winning design, and no amount of fudging can sidestep the facts.

Exactly. Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

One, why do you insist on modifying my quotes, in clear violation of the rules of this board? Are you thumbing your nose at Gunny and his moderators with your blatant disregard of their policies?

Second, why are you so afraid to answer one simple question? After all, you posted the video that lead to it.

 

[PhysicsExist]

The World Trade Center was a strong, over-built edifice, an award-winning design, and no amount of fudging can sidestep the facts.

Exactly. Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

One, why do you insist on modifying my quotes, in clear violation of the rules of this board? Are you thumbing your nose at Gunny and his moderators with your blatant disregard of their policies?

Second, why are you so afraid to answer one simple question? After all, you posted the video that lead to it.

I didn't modify anything.

Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

Good day.

 

[Patriot911]

Exactly. Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

One, why do you insist on modifying my quotes, in clear violation of the rules of this board? Are you thumbing your nose at Gunny and his moderators with your blatant disregard of their policies?

Second, why are you so afraid to answer one simple question? After all, you posted the video that lead to it.

I didn't modify anything.

Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

Good day.

Your bullshit claim is the claim of an ignorant piece of shit who refuses to look at the facts and insists on lying about it. Oh well. You make truthtards look bad. That is enough.

 

[PhysicsExist]

One, why do you insist on modifying my quotes, in clear violation of the rules of this board? Are you thumbing your nose at Gunny and his moderators with your blatant disregard of their policies?

Second, why are you so afraid to answer one simple question? After all, you posted the video that lead to it.

I didn't modify anything.

Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

Good day.

Your bullshit claim is the claim of an ignorant piece of shit who refuses to look at the facts and insists on lying about it. Oh well. You make truthtards look bad. That is enough.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

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.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“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.”

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.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

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

 

[Obamerican]

I didn't modify anything.

Jet fuel fires and carbon based fires could not implode and collapse symmetrically 2 110 story buildings built in the way you described. That is why a reinvestigation is required because the questions have not been answered and the answers have been fallacies. Hopefully soon this can be done, and people over at NYC Coalition For Accountability Now are hard at work to find the real reason to why such a strong, over-built office with an award winning design could explode into 3 stories and dust.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is a good place to check the facts of that day you might not have seen from the Main Stream Media or the Government.

Good day.

Your bullshit claim is the claim of an ignorant piece of shit who refuses to look at the facts and insists on lying about it. Oh well. You make truthtards look bad. That is enough.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

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.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“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.”

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.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

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

Only a psychotic piece of shit posts the same shit over and over and then says that he will continue to post the same shit until EVERYONE believes it!!!

 

[PhysicsExist]

Your bullshit claim is the claim of an ignorant piece of shit who refuses to look at the facts and insists on lying about it. Oh well. You make truthtards look bad. That is enough.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

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.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“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.”

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.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

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

Only a psychotic piece of shit posts the same shit over and over and then says that he will continue to post the same shit until EVERYONE believes it!!!

They are facts. Care to address them? Or do you fear the truth? Address each point if you really think they are 'psychotic piece of shit posts', because they aren't and you can't debunk them. Facts are facts.

 

[Obamerican]

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

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.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“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.”

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.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

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

Only a psychotic piece of shit posts the same shit over and over and then says that he will continue to post the same shit until EVERYONE believes it!!!

They are facts. Care to address them? Or do you fear the truth? Address each point if you really think they are 'psychotic piece of shit posts', because they aren't and you can't debunk them. Facts are facts.

I'm posting that YOU are a psychotic piece of shit. I am waiting for links that will prove me wrong. Show me where you are not a psychotic fucking asshole bent on trying to prove EVERYONE else wrong.

 

[whitehall]

Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.

They also could have refined the '92 plan, parked bigger trucks full of stronger explosives right next to the core columns of both buildings, dropped both towers instantly, and still would have been able to blame it on Al-Quida based on the first attempt. And there would have been far fewer people involved.

But instead, the truth movement wants to believe this multi-layered, complicated plot involving hundreds, if not thousands of people could be pulled off by an administration whose leader could not figure out the correct way to hold a book in front of grade school children.

Unbelievable.

 

[eots]

Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.

the dullness of thought is breathtaking

 

[elvis]

Here's a thought, the conspiracy theory centers around an alleged internal explosion or series of explosions that coincided with the time schedule of a bunch of jihad maniacs who hijacked two planes. The timing would be impossible to regulate. Why not take down the towers during the first attempt by the same nut cases ten years earlier when everything could be timed perfectly? With a little help from the phantom explosives near and dear to conspiracy theorist hearts the job could have been done in '92. Conclusion: the planes brought down the buildings. Live with it.

the dullness of thought is breathtaking

I know. Look what passes for television programming.