Let's hypothetically say it did exceed G, doesn't that indicate a force other than or in addition to gravity?
So you think free fall equals controlled demolition? As in explosives going off over 8 floors simultaneously?
Yes, but, only an additional downward force, (not drag - unless elastic), could cause the collapse rate to exceed g. A falling object onto a stationary or slower moving object can cause the second object to fall at rate greater than g as long as those objects separate. So, if going down the CD argument, explosions at or near ground level cannot give rise to collapse rate of higher levels exceeding g.
Molten metal, presumably steel (2200 degree "melting" point) pouring out of the South Tower for all to see... https://www.google.com/search?q=911...ved=0ahUKEwjPjuLF5OjMAhVFaT4KHVR9Dx4Q_AUIBygC Clearly, those trying to hide the truth cannot account for the missing 1600 degrees of heat from the thermite...
So explain to me why, if explosives were all set off simultaneously to initiate free fall, was there a period of less than free fall at the time the roofline began to drop just prior to the 2.5 second of free fall? Free fall should have started immediately if charges were simultaneously set off over 8 floors correct?
No and no. My conclusion is that NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 was extremely poor. It made no attempt to explain the observations. Its simulation models did not reflect what actually happened and captured on video. They started from a false premise and edited their final version to match the erroneous calculations that had already been done in the previous three years. None of their models matched reality
Couldn't have been aluminum huh? 1220 degree melting point? You say "presumably steel" yet try and make a point using something you aren't sure about?
I don't think you have understood my post. My post just states that no collapse of any part of the building occurred at rates greater than g whereas the posts that I have been replying to have asked why the rate was greater than g. I am refuting that
Nevermind. I just read your post above. - - - Updated - - - Yes, we cross posted. I saw your previous post after I posted that.
By deliberately eliminating the MOST LIKELY cause in direct violation of NFPA protocol (that NIST itself collaborated in developing and promotes/publishes as a standard) and the scientific method, leaving only the LEAST LIKELY cause. Including the omission of key structural components and the deliberate modification of data. There's a popular term used in the computer software industry called GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) that is an appropriate and accurate description of NIST's reports. They are an insult to one's intelligence.
Even if it was aluminum, your jet fuel is still 600 degrees short of melting it... Nice try. No, I did not actually sample the molten metal. Rather, I point out that, whatever that metal was, jet fuel didn't melt it, thermite did...
Believing that you saw molten metal pouring from the tower ( you did not ) is not patriotism it is merely delusion. The OP is a massive failure the only scam falling apart is the retarded twoofer claims
Denial taken to the extreme. I don't believe anyone who has seen the video (other than you) denies it shows molten metal pouring out of the tower, not even those who fanatically defend the OCT. The video of molten metal pouring out the South Tower is not a scam, it's a fact, not a "retarded twoofer claim". Unless perhaps you want to claim the video itself was doctored. That would be a different story. [video=youtube;OmuzyWC60eE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE[/video]
The metal pouring out of the tower is yellow and molten aluminum is silvery. Here's an example of molten aluminum (at 0:10): [video=youtube;IGJ2jMZ-gaI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGJ2jMZ-gaI[/video] And this is an example of molten steel (at 0:39): [video=youtube;shSMeh8WWTA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shSMeh8WWTA[/video] Decide for yourself.
No you asked if it was molten metal or molten steel. It could be both since molten steel is molten metal last I checked so your question is a bit confusing. If it wasn't molten metal, it certainly doesn't look like molten ice cream or molten plastic to me, so if you believe it wasn't molten metal, suggest something that's not metal and I can check into it, for my own knowledge that is. Maybe you agree with another poster that it's "merely a delusion", so in that case I can't really help you at all. Someone else asked if it "couldn't have been aluminum" and yet another said it's "merely a delusion" so I thought I'd try to kill 3 birds with one stone with my post. Was it a problem for you? So did you decide for yourself yet or do you need to ponder this issue some more? Or maybe you'd rather wait for an answer from me that suits you better? Sorry it's the best I have so far.
That would be ludicrous as i do not live there - - - Updated - - - No it does not show that. It shows something burning falling from the building one cannot determine what it was specifically and that is fact. Only fools claim hey know what it was Everyone with a functioning brain who has seen the video agrees
I agree that one cannot determine what it was specifically and that's a fact but I don't see fire (you said it was "burning") so I disagree that it was something "burning", unless of course you mean burning hot. And of course, it could have been molten orange sherbet. It looks orange to me (more or less) and the sparkly stuff could just be an illusion, unless orange sherbet actually does sparkle when heated. Or it could have been molten steel (molten aluminum I think can be ruled out by the color) because it looks similar to another video showing molten steel. Or it could have been (???), you suggest what material since you seem to know for a fact what it wasn't. You claim to know what it wasn't but you haven't shown how and why you came to that conclusion. So what does that make you? So you're saying those who have seen the video and don't agree don't have a functioning brain? So please explain how someone who doesn't have a functioning brain is capable of disagreeing.
deflection noted ... are you aware of how many 10,000 volt transformers were in the building and the composition of soft metals that make up a transformer? ...
I bet more Trump voters buy it than Clinton voters. The NE is the paper of record for the Trump campaign.
Well I noted your loaded question and evasion (failure to answer my questions). I didn't "deflect" anything, make yourself clear, ask a legitimate/honest question instead of a loaded one to begin with. No are you? Are you aware of how much non-transformer metal was in the building? Are you aware of how much steel was in the building? How about copper, aluminum, mercury, zinc, lead, concrete, ice cream, plastic, etc.? What does that have to do with what specific metal (or maybe non-metal) was pouring out of the building? Is your loaded/irrelevant second question your way of denying any possibility that it could very well have been steel? The difference between you and I (besides many) is that I'm quite open to the possibility that it could have been something besides steel, but then again, it could have very well been molten steel. After all, there were numerous eyewitness claims that there was molten steel found all over the place on and after 9/11, including one by Leslie Robertson (21 days after 9/11). And even at least one eyewitness claim, reinforced years later, that there was the "melting of girders" on 9/11. I didn't make any of this up, maybe all these eyewitnesses are really nasty twoofers in cahoots promoting lies? Or maybe they're just corroborating each other. I just don't know, it's such a dilemma. The possibilities are endless, or are they? So now that we got that out the way (or maybe not), did you decide exactly what it was yet? And if you did, on what basis?
so you don't know what was flowing out of the building? ... every other part of your post was fluff ...
No and neither do you. And you certainly have no clue what it wasn't either. I have my opinions and you have yours. The difference is that just about all your opinions are strictly aligned with the OCT, mine contradict/question/scrutinize/criticizes it. Every part of YOUR post was fluff. I was being honest, you were not. Your questions were loaded and meant for dishonesty. And you're being evasive every single time I ask you a direct question, always making sure to ignore/avoid every relevant question or point. For example, it is NOT fluff to cite corroborating eyewitness claims that are direct circumstantial evidence to what may have been flowing out of the building. It is a FACT that they made those claims. It is a FACT that if these eyewitnesses are correct, it is most likely that what was flowing out of the building was molten steel. It is a FACT that there's nothing and no investigation that has proven that they were wrong. Sure, it COULD HAVE BEEN something else but then again, maybe not. It is fluff to ask me if I'm aware of how many 10,000 volt transformers were in the building and the composition of soft metals that make up a transformer, and especially given that you have no clue either or how knowing the answer answers what was flowing out of the building. To my knowledge, no eyewitness has ever claimed seeing any molten metal other than steel.
