an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7

But - Jowenko agreed with NIST. Why would the government kill him? You first made a claim that the truth movement did away with him, yet provided no evidence.

 

Where did I ever make such a statement?

Jowenko agreed with the official story on WTC1, 2,
not WTC7 and the perpetrators of 9/11 thought it to dangerous to have him alive. anyhow, it really doesn't take an expert in controlled demolition to see what happened in the case of WTC7.

 

You most certianly implied his death was 'suspicious'...

 

"an observation about the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7"

and now ...... what about the total destruction feature that is most certainly a point to ponder? Three buildings WTC1,2 & 7 totally destroyed, while other buildings in the same complex were damaged, but not destroyed.
and the manner and speed of said destruction?

 

Asked and answered,and ignored by you...the other buildings were of a different construction

 

So WTC1, 2 & 7 were designed to "collapse" in the manner observed?
Skyscrapers are designed to stand, so whats up with the Turns to dust
and fall down bit as did the towers?

 

<sigh> they were BUILT using a different construction method,kindly stop putting words in my mouth,it's rude.

 

To address the "asked & answered" bit, the trouble with the "answers" here is that the explanations circle back 'round to the NIST report that is based on the Column 79 failure. Problem with all of the alleged explanations is that they really do not explain how it is that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration. There have been attempts to negate the fact of free fall acceleration ( unsuccessful ),
and other explanations that include bits like steel beams colliding with
one-anther and creating an effect not unlike a row of dominoes falling.
however not one of these explanations actually provide a foundation for the argument that WTC7 must have "collapsed" without the aid of an additional source of energy to make sure that it did as was observed.
To promote the idea that "No explosion was needed" is completely missing the point of being able to apply fundamental physics to observed events.

 

No,they've only been unsuccessful in the fact that you refuse to admit the graph was an average

And,really,you've shown NO grasp of even fundamental physics,relying instead on sheer incredulity to base your opinions upon.

 

to address that "average", as for points on the graph, can you expect for the large mass that was observed falling, to shift from falling at just a bit under free fall acceleration to exceeding free fall acceleration, in a fraction of a second? These points are what they are because of anomalies that can be explained by things such as camera vibration,
( and other effects that cause data to be imperfect ) so the data is not
going to be a perfect set of points that describes free fall acceleration.
Fact is that most scientific research relies on data collection that is not only imperfect but prone to having data points that will not conform to reality for various reasons, in that the nature of data collection can not be guaranteed to be perfect.

If WTC7 had accelerated over g, what force would have motivated this acceleration? and then we get into tangents about levers & falling mass that helps the main mass to accelerate over g. These things are dependent on a LOT of "what if" sorts of bits. and in reality would require a stacking up of specific conditions, each one being improbable and making the whole scenario being as if somebody rolled snake eyes 1,000,000 times.

 

Nothing can exceed free fall acceleration

red herring
And your dice analogy is bogus

 

First of all, yes, things can exceed free fall acceleration
if indeed they are not "free falling" but propelled downward
by some force. However, the act of propelling the mass seen
descending on 9/11/2001 ( that is WTC7 ) over g, is really not
likely and would require a LOT of energy and a LOT of focus for
that energy to do the job.

 

If it exceeds free fall acceleration,then it's NOT free fall acceleration...

 

However, can you PROVE acceleration that exceeds g?
and indeed if you can not prove such acceleration,
the case is made, and has already been accepted by both
AE911TRUTH & NIST that the building did "collapse" for
2.25 sec at free fall acceleration, so now we get to address
the implications of free fall acceleration, shall we?

 

Again NIST claimed no such thing,and I'm beginning to think you have no understanding of free fall

 

This is where I point to the graph in the NIST report
and you insist that its an average and thus not real
free fall acceleration, however, it really is free fall acceleration.

anyhow, would you be able to describe the descent of WTC7
for that 2.25 sec. as the product of "collapse" that is the building
acting in response to the damage from rubble thrown by the towers,
& fire? How do you figure that?

 

No free fall acceleration,And I figure it,because it's what happened.

 

and you personally completely discount the possibility of explosives being used to bring down the building..... why?

 

No evidence of explosives.

 

Because there were none...Next?

 

and exactly how is the "no explosives" bit determined?

 

None were found

how do you determine there were explosives?

 

The energy required to do what was observed needed not only the quantity of energy, but the focus of said energy to do what was observed, having energy available, is not enough, having that energy focused so as to do what was observed is key to the whole thing. therefore, an additional source of energy must have been used, that is explosives.

I would also think that the debunker faction, seeking to bring enlightenment to the poor lost truthers would have already found the documents that indicate explosives had been tested for and not found. to the best of my knowledge on this subject, no such document exists.

 

You have been linked to that document numerous times. You have hand waved it away or ignored the posts entirely. Look up PENTTBOM and its multiple reports.

 

PENTTBOM is a HUGE report, and the bits that I have gotten into so far have NOT made any statements about explosives testing, if you are so knowledgeable on this subject, how about a specific pointer to the location of the document that proves there was explosive testing?