Will NIST admit free fall again after truthers force change?

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 25, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's been established that NIST had to change their report to admit free fall of WTC7. Are WTC's 1 and 2 next?

    Just when an "official" supporter gets cornered......we can't talk about it any more.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only change NIST made to the report was to describe what had already been made public in more laymen friendly terms.

    Only a small portion of WTC7 reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration, and only for > 2.5 seconds. NIST and Chandler agree on this point.
     
  3. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I gotcha. Glad you were able to make the call out and shut down the problem.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ok i had to get my hazmat gear out to prepare for toxic bullsht that I am about to be subject to.

    Which "small" portion, and show your data
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The same one that's been discussed across multiple threads for years now.

    The data is in the NIST report. It's even mentioned in the videos you posted. Did you watch them?
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113

    so how long you going to dodge the point?

    either qualify your position or ****.


    and the above poster is just trolling with their own brand of BS
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NIST expanded on it's initial analysis because of Chandler's question, to make the report more user-friendly.

    One part of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

    The full data and analysis may be found in NIST's report on WTC7.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,487
    Likes Received:
    1,725
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No it does not say that in the report.

    neither it does not say only one part
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the measurement of a point on north roof line, while external collapse commenced.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Which means what exactly? (besides the intended, non specific distractions).
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It means only one part of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, not the entirety.

    It was not 'global free fall'.
     
  12. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you're looking for technicalities to get you off the hook? Debate the subject head on for once, without the sidestepping, the call outs to your team, the off shoots that have little to do with the original point, the ridicule, the refocusing, or the abandoning of the point at hand?
    You can't, and you won't.
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've addressed the point head on.

    Do you need it repeated?
     
  14. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    You've addressed your talking points. Nothing specific.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have specifically addressed what Chandler and NIST stated. I quoted them both directly.
     
  16. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You passed the buck (again). You avoided the point. You try and change the parameters of the OP. Classic "official" propaganda, of which, you are apparently one of the leaders.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did no such thing. I pointed out that the OP is a false claim, and I provided citations showing why.

    That's not passing the buck, it's refuting a false claim.

    'Truthers' forced nothing.
     
  18. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Had truthers not forced the point, the report would say nothing pertaining to free fall.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's incorrect. The report already had the data and analysis. Chandler could not understand what he was reading, so NIST went into greater detail regarding the 2.25 seconds that the northwest corner of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration. They made it easier for the public to understand.

    That was pointed out and sourced early in the other thread.

    If you can refute this, go ahead.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    No...it was CHANGED....after the fact. Like many things in the "official" BS story.
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not 'after the fact'. NIST released a preliminary report for the public (ie the entire rest of the world) to look over, review, critique and ask questions before submitting the final report. They wanted to make sure it was understandable and as complete as possible.

    That's what scientists do, you know - they seek peer review to make sure they haven't overlooked something or made false assumptions.

    Chandler had a hard time understand a portion, so NIST spelled the event out in greater detail. Nothing was 'changed'.

    If you can refute this, go ahead.
     
  22. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Chandler pressed them on the point, and they relented by modifying the report, from "no free fall" to "some free fall".
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The data for the NW corner was in the initial released report. Chandler whined that he couldn't understand it, so they went into greater detail. Peer review, it's a good idea.

    Doesn't sound like an entity trying to hide something to me.
     
  24. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    They went in to greater detail, because their original supposition, was faulty.
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not faulty; their explanation of the analysis was over the head of a jr. high school physics teacher, so they made it simpler.
     

Share This Page