9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[SFC Ollie]

I used to be a pothead dive, and I showed up to work stoned, stayed stoned all day, and continued getting stoned into the night. I gave an honest day's work, paid my bills, and handled my business.

When I wanted to relax, I relaxed. When I needed to get things done, I got them done. Personal responsibility doesn't change just because you smoked a joint.

Blaming the weed is a cop out. I don't really care to continue this debate, least of all in this thread.

Then shut the fuck up you idiot. Christ on a cracker. That's not a difficult solution, you fucking moron.

What kind of parents raised you? You have an embarrassing personality.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

First off someones parents are none of your business.
Secondly, The video footage you keep repeating does not show us what was or had already happened to the inner structure of the building. It only shows the facade. But you know that.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Then shut the fuck up you idiot. Christ on a cracker. That's not a difficult solution, you fucking moron.

What kind of parents raised you? You have an embarrassing personality.

http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].” However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.[/I]

First off someones parents are none of your business.
Secondly, The video footage you keep repeating does not show us what was or had already happened to the inner structure of the building. It only shows the facade. But you know that.

It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance. I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.

Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition. Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it. WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed. But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them. Classic case of denial. Classic case of being a coward.
http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

 

[DiveCon]

still waiting on PE to man up and address the concrete core hoax
'

 

[Patriot911]

It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance. I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.

Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition. Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it. WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed. But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them. Classic case of denial. Classic case of being a coward.

high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Yet supertruthtard PE can't explain why nobody can hear the supposed explosives going off.

All the bitching in the world about there HAVING to be explosives doesn't mean dick if you can clearly prove there were no explosives. It means, pure and simple, that you are dead wrong, PE. You can't refute the facts and they directly prove your theory is nothing but a steaming mass of horse shit.

And since you've run from every other demand you man up about the video, I fully expect you to run like the little bitch you are and pretend the videos that prove no explosions are just myths like the boogiemen you dream up on a regular basis.

 

[PhysicsExist]

It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance. I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.

Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition. Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it. WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed. But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them. Classic case of denial. Classic case of being a coward.

high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Yet supertruthtard PE can't explain why nobody can hear the supposed explosives going off.

All the bitching in the world about there HAVING to be explosives doesn't mean dick if you can clearly prove there were no explosives. It means, pure and simple, that you are dead wrong, PE. You can't refute the facts and they directly prove your theory is nothing but a steaming mass of horse shit.

And since you've run from every other demand you man up about the video, I fully expect you to run like the little bitch you are and pretend the videos that prove no explosions are just myths like the boogiemen you dream up on a regular basis.

What in the world are you talking about? WTC7 freefell for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by NIST, as forced by AE911truth.org. This Free fall PROVES it was a controlled demolition.

Why are you so ignorant?
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

 

[DiveCon]

still waiting on PE to man up and address the concrete core hoax
'

'

 

[Liability]

Troofer scum like PhysicLaxative CITE to NIST when it suits their filthy agenda, but scoff at NIST when it suits their agenda.

To be clear, ALL that the NIST folks COULD do was to ESTIMATE the speed at which the building fell. The ability of the NIST folks (or any actual scientist) to do the calculations as accurately as possible was impeded by factors beyond their control. The POINT, however, remains that the conclusion of 2.25 seconds worth of "free fall" is and always was (of necessity) an estimate.

And none of this answers the questions which Troofers insist on ducking.

With no ACTUAL evidence of any explosions or explosives, how on earth did the massive number of conspirators manage to pull this off?

 

[Obamerican]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

 

[PhysicsExist]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

 

[daveman]

If you've never smoked weed before you probably ought to shut the fuck up for the sole reason that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

If you have smoked weed before, and you still think someone can't possibly be productive with it, then you're obviously one of those losers I was talking about.

Either way though, I think you're a fucking faggot

 

[daveman]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

Sooo...how's that hissy fit working out for you?

 

[Obamerican]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

So here we have another truther whose game plan is to post the same bullshit over, and over, and over thinking if he keeps repeating it long enough it will become the truth.

It's the same game plan as concrete boy.

Must be something in the California water (what little they're allowed to have because CA has to save a bait fish).

 

[DiveCon]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

So here we have another truther whose game plan is to post the same bullshit over, and over, and over thinking if he keeps repeating it long enough it will become the truth.

It's the same game plan as concrete boy.

Must be something in the California water (what little they're allowed to have because CA has to save a bait fish).

now THAT i could agree with
it clearly is the same formula

 

[PhysicsExist]

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Why do you avoid these facts?

Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

cognitive dissonance.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT


Why do you avoid these facts?

Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you respond to these facts first?

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

And I see your photo, and raise you one of mine.

Fiterman Hall

And then, when you're done responding to that, maybe you can tell us how Christophera's concrete core fits in with your facts about the 9/11 Physics.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you respond to these facts first?

This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.[/B]

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.

I usually just ignore you, but this is just TOO easy to pass up.

You mean THIS model? lol @ your cognitive dissonance.

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:

This is the type of 'evidence' you use to rebuttal the FACTS. Gross.

2.25 seconds of freefall proves controlled demolition. Wake up.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

WTC 7 NIST MODEL VS. REALITY
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You can't handle the facts. you instead cite sources that are fallacies. Disgusting use of intellect. You deserve no responses, but this time I made an exception because of how blatantly ignorant I was able to make you look for citing the Fake NIST model as your rebuttal to the fact that 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.

 

[DiveCon]

that photo right there shows you what direction the building fell
look how the facade is on TOP of the pile
thats the side you would see from the direction of that video you keep posting
that tells me that the building fell over in THAT direction

 

[Patriot911]

It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance. I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.

Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition. Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it. WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed. But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them. Classic case of denial. Classic case of being a coward.

high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Yet supertruthtard PE can't explain why nobody can hear the supposed explosives going off.

All the bitching in the world about there HAVING to be explosives doesn't mean dick if you can clearly prove there were no explosives. It means, pure and simple, that you are dead wrong, PE. You can't refute the facts and they directly prove your theory is nothing but a steaming mass of horse shit.

And since you've run from every other demand you man up about the video, I fully expect you to run like the little bitch you are and pretend the videos that prove no explosions are just myths like the boogiemen you dream up on a regular basis.

What in the world are you talking about? WTC7 freefell for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by NIST, as forced by AE911truth.org. This Free fall PROVES it was a controlled demolition.

Why are you so ignorant?
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Way to go, ASSHOLE!!!! Just as I predicted, you're running away like a little bitch. No explosion = no explosives. Pure and simple. You've been duped. You've been hornswaggled. You've been hoodwinked! You've been shorn like a good little retarded sheeple who is too fucking stupid to pull his head out of his ass long enough to get a clean breath of air.

How does it feel to be such a tool? Come back when you can address explosives that don't go bang. Fucking loser.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Yet supertruthtard PE can't explain why nobody can hear the supposed explosives going off.

All the bitching in the world about there HAVING to be explosives doesn't mean dick if you can clearly prove there were no explosives. It means, pure and simple, that you are dead wrong, PE. You can't refute the facts and they directly prove your theory is nothing but a steaming mass of horse shit.

And since you've run from every other demand you man up about the video, I fully expect you to run like the little bitch you are and pretend the videos that prove no explosions are just myths like the boogiemen you dream up on a regular basis.

What in the world are you talking about? WTC7 freefell for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by NIST, as forced by AE911truth.org. This Free fall PROVES it was a controlled demolition.

Why are you so ignorant?
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Way to go, ASSHOLE!!!! Just as I predicted, you're running away like a little bitch. No explosion = no explosives. Pure and simple. You've been duped. You've been hornswaggled. You've been hoodwinked! You've been shorn like a good little retarded sheeple who is too fucking stupid to pull his head out of his ass long enough to get a clean breath of air.

How does it feel to be such a tool? Come back when you can address explosives that don't go bang. Fucking loser.

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

WTC7 Explosions
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.