The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[Montrovant]

The top 10 floors 'completely disintegrated'?

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

Is it your contention that the dust created from the collapses means the entire building was disintegrated? Or that the amount of dust means the top 10 floors completely disintegrated?

Are you saying that if any debris or dust was ejected laterally, then all the mass of the building must have been?

What, exactly, is your picture supposed to convey?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.

nothing like proving you dont!

 

[Montrovant]

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?

Again, are you attempting to say that ALL of the mass was ejected laterally?

What caused the complete disintegration of the top 10 floors and what is the evidence of this?

Why only the top 10 floors?

What would be causing the dust and components to be laterally hurled hundreds of feet, if not the mass of the collapsing sections of the building above?

You may not have specified a belief about the events, but this description of events certainly seems to indicate a belief in controlled demolition. If the mass of the collapsing building was being hurled outward rather than downward (except, of course, for the strangely disintegrated top 10 floors which, I can only guess, actually fell downward?) then what other than explosives would cause the collapse to continue and the materials to continue to be hurled outward?

 

[Montrovant]

Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first? All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one. The rest is your own silliness.

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

The Empire State Building wasn't hit by a passenger jet, which is what I said was a first.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Is it your contention that the dust created from the collapses means the entire building was disintegrated? Or that the amount of dust means the top 10 floors completely disintegrated?

Are you saying that if any debris or dust was ejected laterally, then all the mass of the building must have been?

What, exactly, is your picture supposed to convey?

no they managed to find a couple pieces of iron that survived



so do you have a point you want to make in there somewhere?

 

[KokomoJojo]

All of the mass was ejected laterally? So, was it completely disintegrated or ejected laterally, or was it the disintegrated talcum powder/dust that was ejected laterally?

I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?

I'll deal with you in the morning dipshit. Your above drivel is chock full of bullshit.

So Montrovant really isnt your sock then?

 

[Montrovant]

I said that the zone of destruction that continued downward following the complete disintegration of the ten floors of the building above the impact was made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet. Could you really be that stupid? Do yo think pointing out (or making up) errors on my part helps your non-argument?

I'll deal with you in the morning dipshit. Your above drivel is chock full of bullshit.

So Montrovant really isnt your sock then?

Hah!

And if I were a sock, wouldn't it make sense for me to have an account created after Gamolon's?

 

[KokomoJojo]

What caused the complete disintegration of the top 10 floors and what is the evidence of this?

another monumental dumbass question from a monumental ________.

otherwise it would have went down like this

DUH

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'll deal with you in the morning dipshit. Your above drivel is chock full of bullshit.

So Montrovant really isnt your sock then?

Hah!

And if I were a sock, wouldn't it make sense for me to have an account created after Gamolon's?

startup date is irrelevant, a sock is a sock despite which one was here first. you people make some really fucked up useless arguments.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Are you claiming that the two planes hitting the towers were not a first? All you asked was what other firsts happened, and I provided one. The rest is your own silliness.

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

The Empire State Building wasn't hit by a passenger jet, which is what I said was a first.

it was hit by a b25 bomber LOL

a real one that is.

 

[Montrovant]

So Montrovant really isnt your sock then?

Hah!

And if I were a sock, wouldn't it make sense for me to have an account created after Gamolon's?

startup date is irrelevant, a sock is a sock despite which one was here first. you people make some really fucked up useless arguments.

As I understand the term, startup date is actually completely relevant. If Gamolon and I were the same person, he would be my sock, not the other way around.

If you're going to make a ridiculous assertion, you shouldn't be upset at a silly rejoinder.

 

[Montrovant]

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

The Empire State Building wasn't hit by a passenger jet, which is what I said was a first.

it was hit by a b25 bomber LOL

a real one that is.

And you know it was a real b25 how?

Oh, and a b25 is far smaller than a 767 if you weren't aware. I'm not sure why the fact it was (allegedly) a b25 is funny.

 

[E.L.C.]

Really Big Bump!

 

[E.L.C.]

Something very unusual (unique?) in the history of conspiracy theories....

Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....

Only one can be right!​

I sure hope the stunning new discoveries daws101 is going to announce soon can finally reconcile for us how WTC 7 managed to fall straight down through itself (matter literally falling through matter) for eight stories, or 105 feet, at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds as if through air!

It's really been bugging me man!

 

[Gamolon]

Never said it was a comparison, only that it was the first plane to hit a skyscraper you stupid fuck.

You didn't compare the empire state building to the towers? Are you kidding me? Do you even read what you post?

Not a "First". The Empire State Building takes that prize.... which, by the way, did not self-destruct afterward into a neat little pile of steel and dust.

Why don't you enlighten us and explain what that bolded, enlarged, red text above was in reference to then?

 

[Gamolon]

Something very unusual (unique?) in the history of conspiracy theories....

Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....

Only one can be right!​

I sure hope the stunning new discoveries daws101 is going to announce soon can finally reconcile for us how WTC 7 managed to fall straight down through itself (matter literally falling through matter) for eight stories, or 105 feet, at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds as if through air!

It's really been bugging me man!

So you use solid objects to represent a steel structure composed of many different components connected together by connections?

Tell me something E.L.C. Apply your understanding of physics that you portrayed above to a complex structure such as the towers and let's see what you come up with.

How much of a load was the first floor impacted below the descending upper block designed to hold up?

 

[Gamolon]

Shyam Sunder (the head of the NIST) and David Chandler (A high school teacher) actually do agree that it's a fact WTC 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (free fall) for 2.25 seconds. They can't both be right....

Only one can be right!​

So free fall for 2.25 seconds?

Explain what the portion of Chandler's graph means that I circled in blue.



That portion of the green line plot of his data point is not parallel with solid green line. Not free fall. Right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds.

What does this mean E.L.C.?

 

[Gamolon]

Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers?

Look, you're coming down on the "Official Non-Explanation" side claiming the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a gravity driven mechanism intiated by fire.

I'm saying I don't believe that's consistent with physical principles and you're asking me why not. Why not? Because it's inconsistent with basic laws of Newtonian physics you clown....

It doesn't make any sense that after, for example, the top ten floors of WTC 1 had done their bit and completely disintegrated that an explosive zone of destruction (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) should continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 remaining floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it to explain the mechanism involved.

That's why it isn't possible.... just like asking such a stupid ass question like that shows it isn't possible you went to school.

You're like a perpetual motion enthusiast proposing an absurd un-workable mechanism and then demanding to know "Why can't this work?" when people tell you you're nuts.

It's not up to me or anyone else to show you how or why the "Official Non-Explanation" can't work, it's up to you to show me why it can using logic and science to describe the mechanism of how this (destruction) occured.

It's up to supporters of the "Official Non-Explanation" of events to describe a viable mechanism of operation that conforms to physical principles without resorting to magic or sorcery....

Explain how an explosive zone of destruction taking place at the top of a massive falling structure (made up of ejected pulverized concrete dust and multi-ton steel structural components being laterally hurled hundreds of feet) could continue at/near free fall gravitational acceleration right down to the ground through the 70 or 80 floors of intact un-damaged structural components with no mass above it....

I'll wait here Gamaclown.

Two questions.

Provide your proof it was pulverized concert (do you have any clue how much gypsum planking was in the towers?)

Provide proof of your laterally ejected, multi ton, steel components.

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.

I see you didn't answer this. You're providing two pieces of evidence to try and support your conclusion and I need to see what you are using as proof that these two claims are 100% correct.

So what proof do you have that the dust and material was all pulverized concrete and what proof do you have that multi-ton steel components were ejected laterally?

I have not seen your proof yet.

 

[Gamolon]

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.

nothing like proving you dont!

And you do?

You don't think it's possible for a multi-ton, steel perimeter column section, 1000 feet up the tower to fall sideways with force (created by the falling upper section, severing floor truss connections as it came down) and land hundreds of feet away? You need explosives to do that?



Tell us Koko. Maybe even E.L.C. can answer. How much force/explosives is/are needed to propel a section of the perimeter facade VERTICALLY at 40 or 50 miles an hour.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I suppose you don't understand what a parabolic trajectory is and how perimeter column sections, hundreds of feet high can fall sideways and land hundreds of feet away.

Can't wait to see this.

nothing like proving you dont!

And you do?

You don't think it's possible for a multi-ton, steel perimeter column section, 1000 feet up the tower to fall sideways with force (created by the falling upper section, severing floor truss connections as it came down) and land hundreds of feet away? You need explosives to do that?



Tell us Koko. Maybe even E.L.C. can answer. How much force/explosives is/are needed to propel a section of the perimeter facade VERTICALLY at 40 or 50 miles an hour.

you got a point to this superficial nonsense aside from damage control to distract us from the fact that you are continually making a fool out of yourself?