The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[daws101]

First time a pair of skyscrapers were ever run into by a couple of passenger jets?

So passenger jets running into skyscrapers suspends the laws of physics? That's a very interesting theory.... I suppose if Elvis Presley had leapt out from the debris pile singing "Great Balls Of Fire" you would attribute that to the airliners too.

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one of those "special" schools?

I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!

Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first? All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one. The rest is your own silliness.

Besides, what laws of physics were suspended? Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.

You are not bringing anything new to this. These have been gone over and over again on these forums. I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition, or any number of other truther talking points.

Feel free to put more words in my mouth if you reply to this post!

bump!

 

[daws101]

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.

Now you're showing you don't know the meaning of "paraphrase"?!?!?

It wasn't a paraphrase you freak. It was a DIRECT QUOTE. Here, I'll show you...



What a jackass!!!

edited for nonsense...

 

[daws101]

Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?

Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery....

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....

I'll wait here Gamaclown.

another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)

 

[KokomoJojo]

Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?

Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery....

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....

I'll wait here Gamaclown.

they are so far out in left field and ignorant of physics and how the physical world around them works that they force even the nicest person on the planet into a position to simply tell the fucktards to fuck off.

From what I have seen so far they cant even pass a grade school science course much less high school physics.

Person wants to discuss the finer points of the fraud perpetrated on the people and and all we get is



from the trolltards


demanding we teach them physics and/or prove THEIR absurd malframed arguments for them!

 

[E.L.C.]

Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first? All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one. The rest is your own silliness.

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

Besides, what laws of physics were suspended? Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.

Let's see.... How about matter literally falling through matter at gravitational acceleration?

You are not bringing anything new to this. These have been gone over and over again on these forums.

And it will continue to be gone over until some logical explanation that conforms to physical principles is provided.

I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition

I don't recall saying that I believe in any particular theory (apologies if anything I said came accross that way), only that I don't believe the "Official Non-Explanation" because it's inconsistent (or wholly absent, the NIST only considers events leading up to the initiation of collapse, not the mechanism of the collapse itself) with physical principles, so I'm asking questions.

You, on the other hand, are actively supporting an "Official Non-Explanation" of an un-proven theory regarding a sequence of events that does not conform to physical principles, making you a fucking nut case.

 

[Montrovant]

Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?

Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery....

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....

I'll wait here Gamaclown.

The top 10 floors 'completely disintegrated'?

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

Is there some law of physics which holds that a collapsing mass of steel, concrete, and various other materials will be both ejected laterally and completely disintegrated rather than falling downward and exerting ever greater pressure on the structure below?

 

[daws101]

Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first? All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one. The rest is your own silliness.

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

Besides, what laws of physics were suspended? Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.

Let's see.... How about matter literally falling through matter at gravitational acceleration?

You are not bringing anything new to this. These have been gone over and over again on these forums.

And it will continue to be gone over until some logical explanation that conforms to physical principles is provided.

I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition

I don't recall saying that I believe in any particular theory (apologies if anything I said came accross that way), only that I don't believe the "Official Non-Explanation" because it's inconsistent (or wholly absent, the NIST only considers events leading up to the initiation of collapse, not the mechanism of the collapse itself) with physical principles, so I'm asking questions.

You, on the other hand, are actively supporting an "Official Non-Explanation" of an un-proven theory regarding a sequence of events that does not conform to physical principles, making you a fucking nut case.

the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
WHY ?
A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS.
B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
C. STRUCK BY A MUCH SMALLER,lighter AND MUCH SLOWER AIRCRAFT...
(CUE BUZZER) thanks for playing!

 

[E.L.C.]

He did not say talcum powder.

Yeah I did, but then edited for clarity.... Oops!

 

[E.L.C.]

the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
WHY ?
A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS.
B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
C. STRUCK BY A MUCH SMALLER,lighter AND MUCH SLOWER AIRCRAFT...
(CUE BUZZER) thanks for playing!

Never said it was a comparison, only that it was the first plane to hit a skyscraper you stupid fuck.

 

[daws101]

the empire state is a fALSE COMPARISON.
WHY ?
A. DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS.
B.DIFFERENT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
C. STRUCK BY A MUCH SMALLER,lighter AND MUCH SLOWER AIRCRAFT...
(CUE BUZZER) thanks for playing!

Never said it was a comparison, only that it was the first plane to hit a skyscraper.

right...

 

[KokomoJojo]

The top 10 floors 'completely disintegrated'?

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

 

[E.L.C.]

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?

 

[E.L.C.]

newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

Yeah? What other physics were at play Einstein? I can't wait to read this!

 

[E.L.C.]

Well.... What was it?

Dawsian physics? Gamolonian Physics? Motrovantian physics maybe?

 

[Gamolon]

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and talcum powder from the top down, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that,

Talcum powder...



Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers? Let's see if your understanding of physics can provide an answer.

He did not say talcum poweder.

Really asshole?

Look at the time of his original post, the time of my post which I quoted him, and then the time of his edit.

He edited out talcum powder and put in dust.

Isn't that right E.L.C.?

Or are you going to lie through your teeth?

 

[Gamolon]

He did not say talcum powder.

Yeah I did, but then edited for clarity.... Oops!

Perfect.

Feel stupid Koko?

You should!

Pay attention next time!

 

[Gamolon]

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?

I'll deal with you in the morning dipshit. Your above drivel is chock full of bullshit.

 

[Gamolon]

Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?

Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery....

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....

I'll wait here Gamaclown.

Two questions.

Provide your proof it was pulverized concert (do you have any clue how much gypsum planking was in the towers?)

Provide proof of your laterally ejected, multi ton, steel components.

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.

 

[E.L.C.]

What a moron.... you're all over KokomoJojo like a cheap suit over a simple error but you didn't even notice the correction I posted!

Perfect.

Feel stupid Gamolon?

You should!

Pay attention next time!

 

[Gamolon]

What a moron.... you get all all over KokomoJojo over a simple error but you didn't even notice the correction I posted!

Perfect.

Feel stupid Gamolon?

You should!

Pay attention next time!

Is that why I quoted it dumbass?