9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

Went straight up,came straight down

 

post # 23 "FEA data regarding WTC1"

Why should this picture be any less plausible than
the official story? .... what are the odds?

 

Because the FEA data is evidence. Your incredulity isn't.

 

and exactly how was the FEA done?
are you totally aware of all the assumptions
and estimations that may have been done to
produce said FEA? Given the complexity of
the problem, any FEA is going to have to use
some measure of assumptions & estimations.
do you know exactly what values were plugged in,
what assumptions were made? what?

 

Argument from incredulity.

Do you have evidence that what you claim is fact?

 

no its not

 

Problem here is that you have no idea what guesses
were used for the parameters to produce that FEA.
Since the actual breaking strength of the WTC wall
isn't specified in any specification of the WTC tower(s)
it must be invented, people can produce their educated
guesses on this subject, but how do you know that in
any given case, the numbers were or were not "adjusted"
to make the simulation function as required by the official story?

 

How do you know they were?
Show your evidence.

 

Why is the default condition to fall back on the
official version as being the standard, when the
whole bit is still so very much open to question?

Fact is that the mainstream media, first asserted
that the buildings "collapsed" because of airliner crashes,
however they have provided NO foundation for that argument.
its only a statement and nothing more. The potential out-come
of the collapse event(s) have so many variables that it is useful
to come up with probabilities of what may have happened, what
could have happened and how probable any given scenario may be.

 

Argument from fallacy: I don't fall back on the official version, I fall back on the evidence.

 

Jeez, what bullsh!t!

Why don't you provide a link to the speed of the wind? ROFL

psik

 

Prove it didn't happen like that...

 

I have an idea.......
How about the faction that is so intent on
enlightening the poor lost souls who actually
bought the "conspiracy" bit, produce a web-page
( easy 'nuff to use one of the free services that are available )
and in the web-page, show the proof that its actually possible
to fly a Boeing 757/767 type airliner at 590mph @ < 1000 ft .
and include proof that the buildings WTC 1, 2 & 7 could have
collapsed in exactly the manner observed without any help from
explosives. and that would be that, no?
That is what everybody wants right, closure, resolution,
a completeness .... wrap it up all neat and tidy .....

But the reality is, it can't be done, so much of the
critical evidence was already destroyed. that now
almost 13 years after the fact, the debate rages on
and may never get put to rest ..... oh well. ......

 

More incredulity. Your entire argument boils down to 'nuh-uh!'

 

and given the lack of proof from the official story side,
all anybody has is BELIEF that what they think happened,
actually happened. However when taking into account the
data from precedent airliner crashes, and also data as to
what skyscrapers do under stress, it is clear to me that
the most probable, plausible explanation can not possibly
include hijacked airliners used as weapons.

 

let me put this another way,
The title of this thread is:
" 9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives"

OK, lets turn it around, what proof ( if any )
is available to support the claim that the towers & 7
just fell down in the way that they did, without any
help from explosives?

 

Have you read the NIST report on WTC7?

Start there.

 

and YOU actually believe that total waste
of taxpayer $ on a white wash job?

If you actually accept the taxpayer funded white wash job(s)
as the end all be all proof of the official story ......

whatever ......

Good Night.

 

Can't refute any of their work, eh?

As expected.

 

There is your first mistake, WTC7 'just' fell down.

 

it is so easy to refute their "work"
note that in the so called report on the towers
the NIST states " total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"
and then never supports that claim with anything.

in the case of the WTC7 so called report, the NIST
asserts that explosives could not have been used to
bring down the skyscraper, because explosives would
make a loud noise and everybody would have heard,
however the news reporting of the day is full of reports
of explosions and there are sound-track recordings that
confirm there were sounds of explosions to be heard.
Not only that but the NIST falsified the information about
how the famous Column 79 was connected to the structure.

 

No, they didn't. You have been misinformed, go read the document for yourself.

 

and including a 2.25 sec free fall acceleration time, how is that done
given that the NIST specified a "progressive collapse" and that means
one thing follows another however in the case of that 2.25 sec of free
fall, ALL of the support would have had to be removed out from under
the falling mass and ALL at the same time.

 

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

 

so, if you have actually read he whole thing, how about some
chapter & verse references that refute what I have said?
the fact is that a lawyer has filed suit in court over this misrepresentation of the facts by NIST, so what lawyer would risk his reputation and indeed standing as a lawyer to promote something that had no foundation?

also on the subject of that
"total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"
where is the supporting INFORMATION for this?
the people that I very much trust on this subject have
published that there is no support for this in all of the
however many pages of this overdone and padded out
with verbiage, that the NIST published in the hope that
nobody would notice the actual criminal fraud inside.

I stick to my assertion that the performance of "FLT175"
if it had been an actual airliner would look like a hollow
point projectile hit the wall, rather than an armor piercing round.

What do you have to prove
that the official story is anything more than just a story?