No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

I invite the readers to see NIST NCSTAR 1A
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Page 46 Fig 3-15
+ you can find abundant references to this on "truther" web-pages.

The fact of free fall acceleration indicates clearly
that the resistance, that is ALL of the resistance
had to have been removed from under the falling mass
and ALL at the same time to achieve the result observed.

 

Two questions.

1. If what you say above is true, then why was there a brief period of NON FREE FALL before the free fall actually began? According to you, simultaneous removal of ALL resistance, ALL at the same time, means free fall.

2. The free fall was an AVERAGE, not a constant. GO look at the graphs and explain why each point is grater than free fall or less than free fall.

 

What a ridiculous discussion. The Towers exploded and disintegrated IN SECONDS, as is self-evident from the photos and videos. Look at them again if you have trouble digesting exactly what they show: Whatever the precise means that might have been used to blow them up, it's obvious that they were deliberately DEMOLISHED. They most certainly did not "collapse" spontaneously from jet fuel or office fires. And it's insulting to the intelligence of everyone here at this forum, to pretend that they were taken down by fire. They were blown to kingdom come. http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger2/2357/1113357475496390/1600/z/502327/gse_multipart43859.jpg

 

There are perfectly good examples of other venues to cause the "looks-like-explosions-" photos you see. Unfortunately, you don;t want to consider them.

Spontaneously? LOL. I beg to differ.

Also, you missed a characteristic that caused the collapses. IMPACTS that severed/weakened columns in ADDITION to the resultant fires. I guess you need to simplify the characteristics whenever you can to try and make your view more palatable.

 

[video=youtube_share;bMZ-nkYr46w]http://youtu.be/bMZ-nkYr46w[/video]

 

so you think that a floor that cannot sustain its own weight can at the same time majcally have greater strength than its original design yield to "pull in" the perimeter?

Are there gremlins applying voodoo reinforcement is that it? or how can that be possible except in the twisted minds of debunkers?

 

a floor slab that stays connected to the central core and outer wall exactly as required to produce the result, is a bit of a stretch, the truss connections stay intact until it is time for them to disconnect to produce the observed result.

 

It would explain the observed deformation inward of the outer structure before collapse.

 

it would if it were not a completely lunatic theory. Did you even remotely grasp what I explained in my previous post?

 

So, pictures and observations at the site, etc., are just completely lunatic and we are instead supposed to believe the ramblings of a truther? LOL

 

there may be nothing wrong with the observations, however there are some grossly intellectually impaired forensic debunkers out there who have no clue what so ever how to interpret those observations. There are also hordes of debunker parrots thoughtlessly parroting those same mindless debunkers, despite the fact that we know all debunkers are experts.

You just happened across one of those grossly intellectually impaired debunker loony theories.

 

So Phd's are thoughtless debunker parrots but people like you know the real science? Bwaaaahahahaha!

- - - Updated - - -

Here you go, this must have happened because of truther magic too.



Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire.

 

fine then cite and quote the phds you want to convince us applies here.

oh and hint: a burned out plane hull proves my point not yours LOL

 

Well, that's that exactly accurate to say that it didn't collapse at free fall either. The evidence here: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html
WTC7 in Freefall - No Longer Controversial (9:29 min)
NIST Admits Freefall Part I (10:48 min)
NIST Admits Freefall Part II (5:40 min)
NIST Admits Freefall Part III (10:17 min)

NIST admits it so now who is doing the speculating, and who is offering fact?

 

Argument from fallacy. NIST did no such thing.
Try again.

 

I think the link speaks for itself (several times). To simply say otherwise isn't exactly accurate.

 

Yet you can't link to NIST actually stating it. You are relying on second and third hand information.

 

John Gross didn't represent NIST in any capacity whatsoever? That what you're contending?

 

When did he say it?

 

NIST never admitted to any such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The video does not quote the NIST report at all and they admitted no such thing

- - - Updated - - -

The NIST report was not one persons representation your silly twoofer video is innuendo and rumoor without a quote from the NIST report.

Even if John Gross were involved in the investigation it is irrelevant as he does not represent them in the video you posted.

YOu are proven wrong

 

Simple yes or no really. Do you contend that he DID NOT represent NIST? He clearly DID so, your answer will tell me something. I'll be happy to post evidence that he was, in the event you choose to say that he didn't.

 

Please stop the back and forth baiting and discuss the topic

Thanks
Shangrila
PF Moderator

 

A major objection I have to how these discussion have
gone, is the fact that somebody can produce a paragraph
or more of data, real INFORMATION, and some members
of the opposition ... simply post "that isn't the way it is"
and with no additional data or explanation its simply as
much as that is wrong because I said it was wrong.
not very convincing for the opposition.

 

I asked you when he said it..I said nothing about him not representing the NIST

 

The date is easy enough to reference. So, he didn't represent NIST, in your opinion, or did he?