Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
CM86 said:
What part of the report changed your mind?

This just feels a bit vague, sorry.
What subject? 911 in general? NIST? Science?
Click to expand...
I've touched on this earlier in the thread with many quotes, etc.

It's extremely frail and makes a number of assumptions about what happened in order to bring the tower down


It's not a believable report
 
CM86 said:
They added additional information.
I'm watching your completely unbiased video at the moment. ( I especially love how he has to keep pausing to tell us what we should be thinking).

NIST doesn't seem to have changed anything... it looks like they've just added more information to explain the 2.5 seconds?
How does it retract from their original statement?

Edit:
Finished watching it.
Yep, they put out a draft, they were asked to be more specific in an area, so they were.
His poetic license at the end about lying et al doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

you watched all 3 parts? or just part 1?
 
LicoriceAllsorts said:
I've touched on this earlier in the thread with many quotes, etc.

It's extremely frail and makes a number of assumptions about what happened in order to bring the tower down


It's not a believable report
Click to expand...
Well... I don't mean to complain... but I've had to say the same thing many many times...

I guarantee as soon as I finish talking to nut, another poster will step in, talking about how no planes hit the twin towers, or how jet fuel can't melt steel...


And, if I haven't read this NIST report, and I'm just going on my understanding of physics. How will NIST change my view... if it's wrong about the physics?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Boston tiger said:
You will have to explain this a bit more
Click to expand...

Logic and physics would probably suggest that a fire and some rubble wouldn't have the capacity to cause such free fall, particularly with the symmetry building 7 fell in. These buildings were built to withstand a bit of rubble.

Research on which companies resided in this building. Mayor Gulianni had his private bunker in this building too. One would imagine that a man of his stature would be more than aware of the buildings design and structure.
 
CM86 said:
Well... I don't mean to complain... but I've had to say the same thing many many times...

I guarantee as soon as I finish talking to nut, another poster will step in, talking about how no planes hit the twin towers, or how jet fuel can't melt steel...


And, if I haven't read this NIST report, and I'm just going on my understanding of physics. How will NIST change my view... if it's wrong about the physics?
Click to expand...
Just read it and get back to me

I haven't made a ton of posts in this thread, so if you search under my name you will see quotes from the report that I have posted, and they are questionable to say the least
 
CM86 said:
They went from saying the speed was approximately constant, because they only looked at the start point and the finish point.
Pretty lazy. But from what I have seen, the NIST covered a lot...
They went on to elaborate on how, due to the acceleration and deceleration, the total time was still 40% more than free fall speed.
So moments of freefall, don't discount the moments of resistance.
Click to expand...

LAzy??? wow and who is biased? they also explained how there WAS resistance.... and now when they were forced to admit free fall back flipped ... sorry I meant they were lazy again.. and they HAVE NOT EXPLAINED THIS!!!!!!!!! show me where they have.
 
CM86 said:
OK.
I'm off.

Gotta go watch nut's youtube videos (gotta find them first).
Gotta read through LicoriceAllsorts' 62 posts in this thread, to find out that I shouldn't bother with NIST.
Also gotta read the 130 page NIST report.

And I'm sure it will all be worth it.
Click to expand...

can you find the model NIST used to support their revised claims of free fall? that one I cant find. ..... maybe they are just being Lazy and forgot to release it so it can be independently tested??? or am I being Biased again?
 
Nebula1971 said:
Logic and physics would probably suggest that a fire and some rubble wouldn't have the capacity to cause such free fall, particularly with the symmetry building 7 fell in. These buildings were built to withstand a bit of rubble.

Research on which companies resided in this building. Mayor Gulianni had his private bunker in this building too. One would imagine that a man of his stature would be more than aware of the buildings design and structure.
Click to expand...

Those twin towers were fairly big buildings and I'm pretty sure they fell down near that building. It is not as if they are saying the wind blew the building over.
 
nut said:
NIST reports says damage from the falling towers had no affect on building 7.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying you'd rekon two big building falling down near it and causing damage plus a fire is probably not going to be good for the building no matter which way you look at it. You know what I'm saying.
As I said it is not if it blew down in the wind or it had termites.
What did the insurance guys say? They are usually up with all this.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Boston tiger said:
I'm just saying you'd rekon two big building falling down near it and causing damage plus a fire is probably not going to be good for the building no matter which way you look at it. You know what I'm saying.
As I said it is not if it blew down in the wind or it had termites.
What did the insurance guys say? They are usually up with all this.
Click to expand...

I can believe a building can collapse because of fire(even though its never happened before).... but not symmetrically like Building 7. The roof line remains level through out the collapse.... the free fall evidence... etc... fire did not bring down building 7.
Why would NIST not release the model they used to show how the building collapsed? ... its pretty simple the reason why they havent.
 
nut said:
then how does something fall, at free fall if the floors below are not removed? The report states part of the collapse is at free fall.... please explain.
Click to expand...
I already have! I have simplified it down for you so much that the internet is about to be sucked into a vortex of dumbness.

If it is still beyond your capabilities to grasp the simple concept behind it then perhaps thinking just isn't for you.
 
Kellythatsit said:
I already have! I have simplified it down for you so much that the internet is about to be sucked into a vortex of dumbness.

If it is still beyond your capabilities to grasp the simple concept behind it then perhaps thinking just isn't for you.
Click to expand...

Even NIST explained why it didnt fall at free fall originally because of resistance...LMAO.... now they have back flipped and wont release their model...

Kellythatsit said:
Oh ffs, the NIST wrote an entire report looking solely at tower 7. They outline thoroughly in that document exactly what happened and what led to the collapse:
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Click to expand...

Show me where they explain free fall....
Kellythatsit said:
This is the section you're after:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861611

However, astutely realising that most CTs won't bother to read an actual scientific document they also included on their website an FAQ specifically about the findings. They go into some detail here too and outline how they determined the three stages Mr Chandler refers to:
Click to expand...
The same bunch of blokes who didnt know the diference between constant speed and acceleration ???? yes a very scientific document...LMAO


Kellythatsit said:
But if you still can't make sense of what is being said, basically, after the failure of floor 13 initiated collapse and the entire internal structure fell, the exterior columns buckled as the building's outer walls began to fall. This is stage 1. Then during stage 2 the walls continued to fall at free fall speed because there was nothing at all to hold them up, until at stage 3 the fall is arrested as it encounters resistance from the already collapsed internal structure and debris pile.
Click to expand...

You might want to google column 79.... http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/786...der-between-columns-44-and-79-is-exposed.html

Kellythatsit said:
To dumb it down even further, the insides fell, nothing was left to hold up the walls. They therefore fell at free fall speed until they encountered resistance.
Click to expand...

Wow they forgot to join the wall with the floors when they built the building.... no wonder it fell so easily.


Kellythatsit said:
One of the central premises of truther mythology is that "free fall" must mean demolition and that free fall cannot occur in "natural" collapses. Utter nonsense of course but they are not targeting the physics literate sector of society.
Click to expand...

That scientific document you mentioned doesnt explain free fall but i guess they werent apart of the physics literate sector of society.... maybe you should contact them and help explain the difference between constant speed and free fall.... it took them 7 years.... but apparently they were just lazy.
Kellythatsit said:
So there it is up front in so many of their claims "free fall", implying or explicitly stated as proof of demolition and the complementary part of alleged denial by authorities such as NIST.
Click to expand...


Again I ask.... show me in the NIST where they explain the free fall? .... and show me where they have released thier model on how the building collapsed. Surely you must have conection being part of the PLSS (physics literate sector of society)
 
Boston tiger said:
I'm just saying you'd rekon two big building falling down near it and causing damage plus a fire is probably not going to be good for the building no matter which way you look at it. You know what I'm saying.
As I said it is not if it blew down in the wind or it had termites.
What did the insurance guys say? They are usually up with all this.
Click to expand...
Nonononono...you just don't get it!

The insurance agencies are behind the whole plot in a complicated race to see who can pay out the most money.

Don't you see ... Or have they gotten to you too?
 
nut said:
Even NIST explained why it didnt fall at free fall originally because of resistance...LMAO.... now they have back flipped and wont release their model...



Show me where they explain free fall....

The same bunch of blokes who didnt know the diference between constant speed and acceleration ???? yes a very scientific document...LMAO




You might want to google column 79.... http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/786...der-between-columns-44-and-79-is-exposed.html



Wow they forgot to join the wall with the floors when they built the building.... no wonder it fell so easily.




That scientific document you mentioned doesnt explain free fall but i guess they werent apart of the physics literate sector of society.... maybe you should contact them and help explain the difference between constant speed and free fall.... it took them 7 years.... but apparently they were just lazy.



Again I ask.... show me in the NIST where they explain the free fall? .... and show me where they have released thier model on how the building collapsed. Surely you must have conection being part of the PLSS (physics literate sector of society)
Click to expand...
Mate, sorry but I can't do this any more with you.
You are either incapable of understanding what many of us here are telling you or you are being wilfully ignorant.
I'm not sure which one and I don't care.
I'm sure you'll take this as some kind of victory, that you've "won" the debate but seriously, I have better things to do than play chess with a pigeon.
Enjoy living in your world of youtube video "evidence" where I hope you find some kind of truth.
 
Kellythatsit said:
Mate, sorry but I can't do this any more with you.
You are either incapable of understanding what many of us here are telling you or you are being wilfully ignorant.
I'm not sure which one and I don't care.
I'm sure you'll take this as some kind of victory, that you've "won" the debate but seriously, I have better things to do than play chess with a pigeon.
Enjoy living in your world of youtube video "evidence" where I hope you find some kind of truth.
Click to expand...

I am simply asking for the evidence that you said was is in the report. I am open minded and are happy to be provided proof that the official story is true... just show me where in the NIST report it explains how the building fell at free fall for about 2.25 seconds.
 
I shouldn't have become frustrated. But I realised why I did.

I wanted to talk about the physics, and I was being pushed into defending the NIST report... a report that I wasn't even backing in the first place.




Also, found out that the 167 page one I looked at is one of tons... Currently reading one that is 797 pages.

Currently it's looking pretty damn detailed.

nut http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611
Start at chapter 8.7.2.
Document page 343
PDF page representation 384.

If you really are open minded, have a look.
I think it's only fair you do part of the reading that I'm having to.

And LicoriceAllsorts, did you definitely read the entire report? Or did you look at a conspiracy breakdown summary?
 
CM86 said:
I shouldn't have become frustrated. But I realised why I did.

I wanted to talk about the physics, and I was being pushed into defending the NIST report... a report that I wasn't even backing in the first place.




Also, found out that the 167 page one I looked at is one of tons... Currently reading one that is 797 pages.

Currently it's looking pretty damn detailed.

nut http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611
Start at chapter 8.7.2.
Document page 343
PDF page representation 384.

If you really are open minded, have a look.
I think it's only fair you do part of the reading that I'm having to.

And LicoriceAllsorts, did you definitely read the entire report? Or did you look at a conspiracy breakdown summary?
Click to expand...
I read the entire report, have you seen my posts yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top