Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

[Gamolon]

they list him as on they consulted but yet he says this



Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Well, well, well.

In the same article, it is made quite clear that Quintiere doesn't believe ANY of your conspiracy theory bullshit.

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Eots, you're a loser through and through. I even bolded the important part for you so you couldn't miss it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Says the guy that hasn't proven a thing he's posted on here. All you guys do is keep telling me that I haven't proven anything while not posting anything to prove me otherwise. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THIS CONSPIRACY WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. All you have done is provide speculation or alternate scenarios do things I have shown you.

1. You have not proven that building seven was brought down by explosives.

2. You have not proven that the towers were brought down by explosives.

3. You have not proven that there was any secret coverup documents inside building 7.

4. You have not proven at all that this was a larger government conspiracy.

I and Ollie are still right until you do. That's the beauty of this. I don't feel like I am wrong about anything because as of right now, the majority of people in the U.S. don't believe your theory. You mind as well be convincing everyone that donkey turds are good for your health.

to prove a criminal case case one needs an authority to investigate under the terms of the petition....but without question You..lil Ollie and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed to meet your burden of proof on your 9/11 conspiracy theory and explanation for the collapses

Eots, do you understand that the 911CR and the NIST are the only people to do an actual investigation? And since they did no one has come up with any actual facts or evidence to disprove even one main point that they have made. As it has been explained to you before. We do not have to prove that the official investigators are right; you and yours need to prove they are wrong. Something that you are all sadly lacking in doing.

 

[eots]

to prove a criminal case case one needs an authority to investigate under the terms of the petition....but without question You..lil Ollie and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed to meet your burden of proof on your 9/11 conspiracy theory and explanation for the collapses

Eots, do you understand that the 911CR and the NIST are the only people to do an actual investigation? And since they did no one has come up with any actual facts or evidence to disprove even one main point that they have made. As it has been explained to you before. We do not have to prove that the official investigators are right; you and yours need to prove they are wrong. Something that you are all sadly lacking in doing.

do you understand thats complete bullshit parroted from candycorn and there are many ommisions to the 9/11 commission's report and this is admitted by the majority panel

 

[eots]

 

[BrianH]

Says the guy that hasn't proven a thing he's posted on here. All you guys do is keep telling me that I haven't proven anything while not posting anything to prove me otherwise. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THIS CONSPIRACY WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. All you have done is provide speculation or alternate scenarios do things I have shown you.

1. You have not proven that building seven was brought down by explosives.

2. You have not proven that the towers were brought down by explosives.

3. You have not proven that there was any secret coverup documents inside building 7.

4. You have not proven at all that this was a larger government conspiracy.

I and Ollie are still right until you do. That's the beauty of this. I don't feel like I am wrong about anything because as of right now, the majority of people in the U.S. don't believe your theory. You mind as well be convincing everyone that donkey turds are good for your health.

to prove a criminal case case one needs an authority to investigate under the terms of the petition....but without question You..lil Ollie and NIST and the 9/11 commission have failed to meet your burden of proof on your 9/11 conspiracy theory and explanation for the collapses

How so? The only reason you say "fail" is because you don't believe it. I've showed you over and over again. The NIST report shows figure after figure of house the inside beams buckled because if the weaking of steel. Look at the actual report instead of taking other people's word for it. Here is a FAQ from the NIST report. It answers every question.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions
NIST and the World Trade Center

They give a VERY detailed description as to what brought the towers and building 7 down. Just because you don't believe it based on a youtube video doesn't make it false. And just because you don't have time to read the report in full doesn't mean that it's false.

 

[PhysicsExist]

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]

 

[eots]

they list him as on they consulted but yet he says this



Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Well, well, well.

In the same article, it is made quite clear that Quintiere doesn't believe ANY of your conspiracy theory bullshit.

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Eots, you're a loser through and through. I even bolded the important part for you so you couldn't miss it.

no actual the important part is this all else is theory



the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”


the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

 

[BrianH]

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

Hypothetically, suppose that building 7 was demolished by explosives. What does it prove? That the building was structually jeapordized, therefore, they wanted to bring it to the ground? Would YOU go back to work in that building in the following weeks? So far there has been absolutely ZERO proof that there was something in building 7 that the government wanted to get rid of. This is PURE speculation on the truther movement. I have stated that even though it hasn't been proven it was brought down by explosives, it wouldn't bother me if it was.

As far as Mr. Chandler. It's funny that he can assume to know what the only possible scenario would be for something that has NEVER happened before in the history of Earth.

 

[eots]

they list him as on they consulted but yet he says this



Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Well, well, well.

In the same article, it is made quite clear that Quintiere doesn't believe ANY of your conspiracy theory bullshit.

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Eots, you're a loser through and through. I even bolded the important part for you so you couldn't miss it.

and this...

 

[AmericanMade76]

God Bless Those Who Fight For The Truth

 

[BrianH]

God Bless Those Who Fight For The Truth

No one is fighting for anything. Conspiracy theorists have been refuted time and time again. They come up with some looney conspiracies because of some stupid picture someone took, or an edited video on youtube that leaves out bits and pieces of people's statements to make it look like they are advocating a bigger issue than what they're actually making. 99% of these conspiracies have been proven to be false by engineers or others. IS there likely information that is not being made public? Sure. There's still information that's not made public from 100 years ago. Does this mean that the government orchestrated an event that killed thousands of it's own citizens. NO. And if the government is so ruthless in regards to the lives of it's own citizens, it would use its assets to systematically get rid of all the truthers....provided that what they were spewing was true.

Most of the truther followers just take a few loony engineers' word for something without actually doing any research themselves. They sit there and claim that the NIST report doesn't talk about what caused the collapses when they SPECIFICALLY state that the cause of collapse were from the intial impact of the planes and the ensuing fires. The MAIN cause of collapse was because the planes took out the center supports. Sit down and read the NIST report and you'll see that they provide a LONG explanation of the events tha took place. Have they been wrong a time or two...sure. What idiot expects an investigation of such a horrid and massive event to just breeze through and be 100% correct on the first time. Smaller investigations are subject to such inaccuracy.

 

[BrianH]

It's funny how the truthers will sit there and say that the people heard explosions, therefore, that means there were explosives used to bring the towers down.
They, however, never seem to want to explain where exactly the explosions were coming from in or on the building. It's already been proven that a commercial airliner will explode and continue to explode for a long time after an initial crash. The NIST report contests that the explosions were coming from the impact area of the towers and were not coming from lower floors. Have any of you ever heard an explosion in the inner-city near skyscrapers? It sounds like it's coming from everywhere at once. It sounds like it comes from one direction when it's actually a block behind you.

 

[eots]

It's funny how the truthers will sit there and say that the people heard explosions, therefore, that means there were explosives used to bring the towers down.
They, however, never seem to want to explain where exactly the explosions were coming from in or on the building. It's already been proven that a commercial airliner will explode and continue to explode for a long time after an initial crash. The NIST report contests that the explosions were coming from the impact area of the towers and were not coming from lower floors. Have any of you ever heard an explosion in the inner-city near skyscrapers? It sounds like it's coming from everywhere at once. It sounds like it comes from one direction when it's actually a block behind you.

funny how nothing you say is ever accurate...

 

[eots]

 

[eots]

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

Since you can't seem to get away from posting the same stuff over and over and over, I'll just pick out this one statement for today.

The problem with it is obvious. Once again the truthers ignore the fact that the penthouse fell into the building at least 6 seconds before the rest of the roofline moved...

 

[eots]

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

Since you can't seem to get away from posting the same stuff over and over and over, I'll just pick out this one statement for today.

The problem with it is obvious. Once again the truthers ignore the fact that the penthouse fell into the building at least 6 seconds before the rest of the roofline moved...

6 secs...more like.06 secs....and so what ? how does this rule out explosives Einstein ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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

Since you can't seem to get away from posting the same stuff over and over and over, I'll just pick out this one statement for today.

The problem with it is obvious. Once again the truthers ignore the fact that the penthouse fell into the building at least 6 seconds before the rest of the roofline moved...

6 secs...more like.06 secs....and so what ? how does this rule out explosives Einstein ?

You should maybe look at a real video of the collapse again. You know, one that doesn't come from a truther site? You can easily count to 6 between the penthouse falling and the first movement of the main roof line. Dumbass.

It proves that the inside of the building collapsed 6 seconds before the facade that you guys want to fall at free fall. Well it may have if there was nothing behind it....

 

[eots]

Since you can't seem to get away from posting the same stuff over and over and over, I'll just pick out this one statement for today.

The problem with it is obvious. Once again the truthers ignore the fact that the penthouse fell into the building at least 6 seconds before the rest of the roofline moved...

6 secs...more like.06 secs....and so what ? how does this rule out explosives Einstein ?

You should maybe look at a real video of the collapse again. You know, one that doesn't come from a truther site? You can easily count to 6 between the penthouse falling and the first movement of the main roof line. Dumbass.

It proves that the inside of the building collapsed 6 seconds before the facade that you guys want to fall at free fall. Well it may have if there was nothing behind it....

it proves nothing of the sort

 

[eots]

so wouldn't the entire inner structure of a sky scraper collapsing behind a facade create a lot of noise and dust before the facade collapsed ?