Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[TakeAStepBack]

Lastly, we've gone over this in this thread fucking numerous times. Why won't NIST release their model?

 

[daws101]

NIST needs to release their model for independent verification. Because they built their analysis off from a computer model simulator. Until they release there model and the data points they used, we can not verify that they didn't fit the model data to meet the outcome they desired.

David Chandler does a fine job contesting this. Regardless, as I stated before, you can not have free fall acceleration if resistance is present. It is a farce.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) - YouTube

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) - YouTube

the problem with your concept of "independent verification" is it's biased..

 

[daws101]

Lastly, we've gone over this in this thread fucking numerous times. Why won't NIST release their model?

why? to ease the over active minds of a few crack pots? either way it get's you no closer to thermite usage or the men in black ...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why? WHY? Perhaps because in science we run peer review and test to determine the authenticity of the data being presented.
Release of the data means that it can be independently verified by anyone. There is no bias in that at all. it is what we do.

Secondly, as an engineer by trade, I don't appreciate your condescending commentary about men in black or explosive charge. I don't by the explosives bit for numerous reasons. That has absolutely nothing to do with peer reviewing data of a model that tries to explain away free fall acceleration in what SHOULD be a natural global collapse. Apparently you still aren't getting it.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The empty building fell down.

The occupied buildings fell down.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The empty building fell down.

The occupied buildings fell down.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSnSFLquVU]Greatest Come Back Ever - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

No, this is the greatest comeback to the Truthers(copyright & patent pending)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8]Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, you're simply a fucking moron who can't grasp the implications of not peer reviewing scientific data. There is you rmessage.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSnSFLquVU]Greatest Come Back Ever - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA]WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ&feature=related]WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll watch that when i have more time.
Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present

If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I'll watch that when i have more time.
Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present

If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.

Not quite correct. NIST acknowledged FF acceleration for only one portion of the north facade.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present

 

[daws101]

Why? WHY? Perhaps because in science we run peer review and test to determine the authenticity of the data being presented.
Release of the data means that it can be independently verified by anyone. There is no bias in that at all. it is what we do.

Secondly, as an engineer by trade, I don't appreciate your condescending commentary about men in black or explosive charge. I don't by the explosives bit for numerous reasons. That has absolutely nothing to do with peer reviewing data of a model that tries to explain away free fall acceleration in what SHOULD be a natural global collapse. Apparently you still aren't getting it.

ok I'll bite, what kind of engineer are you ?

2.your comment "there is no bias in that" is bullshit.." your" or should I say anyone who supports the, for lack of a better phrase "the twoofer theory of events on 911" is already bias, in the same way religious people are bias...
as to your not appreciating my so called condescending commentary all I can say is put on your big boy pants and grow a pair..

 

[daws101]

I'll watch that when i have more time.
Regardless, NIST acknowledges free fall acceleration for up to 8 floors of wtc 7. And yet I'll have to say it again, you can't have free fall acceleration if resistance is present

If NIST was so sure of their model and the data they used, why not release it for peer review?.

Not quite correct. NIST acknowledged FF acceleration for only one portion of the north facade.

you have to read the nist report to know that...if you google or bing wtc7 freefall 99% of the listings are twoofer sites the scream nist admits freefall and nothing else, no wonder these guys get laughed at !

 

[TakeAStepBack]

WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1 - YouTube

WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2 - YouTube

The producer doesn't show his work very well. But that is OK. Because the producer acknowledges that free fall acceleration occurred. You can not achieve free fall acceleration if their is resistance. NIST and anyone else can claim "negligible" resistance all they want. Buckling of columns requires energy. Energy that can not be expelled twice. Meaning it can not convert into kinetic energy to allow for FFA. .

How many times do I have to say this?

 

[the other mike]

Spread the word and research what the real issues are with the NIST investigation and the problems the families of the victims of 9-11 and many others have with the explanation that was told to the country.

Thanks mr. Jones

 

[Soupnazi630]

The producer doesn't show his work very well. But that is OK. Because the producer acknowledges that free fall acceleration occurred. You can not achieve free fall acceleration if their is resistance. NIST and anyone else can claim "negligible" resistance all they want. Buckling of columns requires energy. Energy that can not be expelled twice. Meaning it can not convert into kinetic energy to allow for FFA. .

How many times do I have to say this?

They never claimed of acknowledghed free fall acceleration.