The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[KokomoJojo]

First time a pair of skyscrapers were ever run into by a couple of passenger jets?

excuse me but no plane, (real or imagined) hit world trade 7.

 

[KokomoJojo]

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you blah blah blah....

Yeah yeah, I read that.... the "explanation" that didn't explain anything, very similar to the "careful investigation" of the possible use of explosives that didn't investigate anything.

The NIST says the upper portion of WTC 7 fell in a symetrical non-engineered collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet in "Stage Two" of it's non-investigation.... What a load!

The NIST, you, and really anyone who wants to can add all the "Stages" they like, but it will never make the "Official-Magical-Reverse-Conspiracy-Theory" you support consistent with physical principles when it comes to that 2.25 seconds on September 11, and even adding a million "Stages" won't change the laws of physics.

It's a ridiculously impossible notion that the upper portion of WTC 7 could have fallen straight down through eight stories of intact existing structural components beneath it (matter literally falling through matter) at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds, or 105 feet, in a manner virtually indistinguishable from the predicted result for the same size portion of a similarly damaged building falling the same distance through thin air....

Deal with it.

not only did it free fall




physics blows their coverup again,


but it gets even better yet!


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz7v8EgCzJM"]WTC7 - The Stiffener Plates Explained[/ame]


nist is caught with another very long nose!

 

[Gamolon]

not only did it free fall

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

 

[KokomoJojo]

not only did it free fall

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

There is a 3 stage demolition the last stage failed. Same as your illthoughtout arguments.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

yeh dumbass you can make a building fall anyway you want, even put on a kool fire show just like the wtc.

I suppose you are going to tell me that is not a demolition
and if it is then tell us why wtc7 comparatively would not be.

arent you one of the people that were unable to answer a simple high school fizix problem?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

What is a "quick freefall"

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

do you have records of the time?

 

[Gamolon]

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

Hey dumbass.

Think about what you just said.

Chandler's graph is supposedly showing THE ENTIRE BUILDING, using a single point, falling at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the ENTIRE BUILDING started at freefall (the very beginning of the graph), then went into no freefall (next line of the graph), then went into freefall again.

 

[KokomoJojo]

not only did it free fall

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

There is a 3 stage demolition the last stage failed. Same as your illthoughtout arguments.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

yeh dumbass you can make a building fall anyway you want, even put on a kool fire show just like the wtc.

I suppose you are going to tell me that is not a demolition
and if it is then tell us why wtc7 comparatively would not be.

arent you one of the people that were unable to answer a simple high school fizix problem?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

What is a "quick freefall"

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

do you have records of the time?

Hey dumbass.

Think about what you just said.

Chandler's graph is supposedly showing THE ENTIRE BUILDING, using a single point, falling at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the ENTIRE BUILDING started at freefall (the very beginning of the graph), then went into no freefall (next line of the graph), then went into freefall again.

are you sure that is what chandlers graph is showing? It may be a sectional demolition, is that what you are trying to bring into this now?

Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?

oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?

 

[Gamolon]

Explain why, in the graph you posted, the very beginning of the descent shows a period of nonfreefall.

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

There is a 3 stage demolition the last stage failed. Same as your illthoughtout arguments.

Are you saying that when all the columns were supposedly blown at the same time, the building hanged in midair for about .7 seconds?

yeh dumbass you can make a building fall anyway you want, even put on a kool fire show just like the wtc.

I suppose you are going to tell me that is not a demolition
and if it is then tell us why wtc7 comparatively would not be.

arent you one of the people that were unable to answer a simple high school fizix problem?

Why is there a quick freefall at the beginning of the graph, followed by no freefall, followed by free fall, then followed by no freefall?

What is a "quick freefall"

Answer a couple of questions.

Did WTC7 completely collapse in about 6 or 7 seconds?

do you have records of the time?

Hey dumbass.

Think about what you just said.

Chandler's graph is supposedly showing THE ENTIRE BUILDING, using a single point, falling at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the ENTIRE BUILDING started at freefall (the very beginning of the graph), then went into no freefall (next line of the graph), then went into freefall again.

are you sure that is what chandlers graph is showing? It may be a sectional demolition, is that what you are trying to bring into this now?

Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?

oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?

You mean you don't know what his graph is showing??? What a joke! He uses the corner of WTC7 to get data points of the roofline going downward. He then uses that single data point to make the claim that THE ENTIRE BUILDING (not sections or different parts like you claim) came down at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the roofline started off at freefall, then no freefall, then freefall. The movement downward indicates, supposedly, that the explosives have gone off and severed the support columns.

I'll wait here as you continue to fumble around.

Again, the very beginning of the graph shows freefall, then it stops. If beginning indicates "zero resistance below" due to the structure being blown away, what caused the short resistance that followed next?

 

[Gamolon]

Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?

You were shown to be quite inept at forming your "fizix" question because you think square inches can be converted into cubic inches. There is also another mistake in your "fizix" question which, based on your lack of understanding shown above, you won't find.

Your question is stupid and incorrect.

What a combination!

 

[Gamolon]

oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?

Really?

You don't see that short vertical green line right before the short horizontal line followed by the freefall line?

Are you blind as well as stupid?

 

[Gamolon]

do you have records of the time?

Answer the question Koko. Or are you afraid for some reason?

Did WTC7 totally collapse in about 6 to 7 seconds? Very easy to answer.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Hey dumbass.

Think about what you just said.

Chandler's graph is supposedly showing THE ENTIRE BUILDING, using a single point, falling at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the ENTIRE BUILDING started at freefall (the very beginning of the graph), then went into no freefall (next line of the graph), then went into freefall again.

are you sure that is what chandlers graph is showing? It may be a sectional demolition, is that what you are trying to bring into this now?

Watch where you are driving and when you going to give a number to the answer to that high school (kid tested) fizix question?

oh and there is no freefall at the beginning of that graph, so I have no idea what you are going on about do you?

You mean you don't know what his graph is showing??? What a joke! He uses the corner of WTC7 to get data points of the roofline going downward. He then uses that single data point to make the claim that THE ENTIRE BUILDING (not sections or different parts like you claim) came down at freefall for 2.25 seconds.

So explain how the roofline started off at freefall, then no freefall, then freefall. The movement downward indicates, supposedly, that the explosives have gone off and severed the support columns.

I'll wait here as you continue to fumble around.

Again, the very beginning of the graph shows freefall, then it stops. If beginning indicates "zero resistance below" due to the structure being blown away, what caused the short resistance that followed next?

Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.




see the pretty red lines?

The pretty red lines are not parallel to the green line.

To be freefall the red line must be parallel to the green line.

par·al·lel (p

r

-l

l

)adj.1. Being an equal distance apart everywhere

I hope that helps

 

[Gamolon]

Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.




see the pretty red lines?

The pretty red lines are not parallel to the green line.

To be freefall the red line must be parallel to the green line.

par·al·lel (p

r

-l

l

)adj.1. Being an equal distance apart everywhere

I hope that helps

***knocks on your head***

STOOPID!!!!

Let me clarify this for you. Chandler took a point on the roof and measured it for movement as the building fell. That is what's graphed.

So in the first part, there is freefall, meaning the supposed explosives already went off and the roofline started downward. Then all of a sudden there a measurement of no freefall. Then there's freefall.

What happened?

I thought the resistance below was blown away by explosives? Why did he record a sudden instance of no freefall?

 

[Gamolon]

URL="http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/mypbemotes/media/wtc%207/pathnamr002_zpsed19c_zpse963738a.jpg.html"]

[/URL]

Hey Koko.

What's that line in the blue oval? Looks "parallel" to your "not freefall" red line. What happened there? Resistance?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.




see the pretty red lines?

The pretty red lines are not parallel to the green line.

To be freefall the red line must be parallel to the green line.

par·al·lel (p

r

-l

l

)adj.1. Being an equal distance apart everywhere

I hope that helps

***knocks on your head***

STOOPID!!!!

Let me clarify this for you. Chandler took a point on the roof and measured it for movement as the building fell. That is what's graphed.

So in the first part, there is freefall, meaning the supposed explosives already went off and the roofline started downward. Then all of a sudden there a measurement of no freefall. Then there's freefall.

What happened?

I thought the resistance below was blown away by explosives? Why did he record a sudden instance of no freefall?

OMFG

What a fucking tard! Go to high school for fuck sake.



freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s dumb ass

 

[Gamolon]

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

Better explain that to Chandler...

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Seems to me you're just spewing crap all over and haven't even researched anything!

 

[Gamolon]

Since you dont even know what freefall is here is the idiots guide to freefall.




see the pretty red lines?

The pretty red lines are not parallel to the green line.

To be freefall the red line must be parallel to the green line.

I hope that helps

***knocks on your head***

STOOPID!!!!

Let me clarify this for you. Chandler took a point on the roof and measured it for movement as the building fell. That is what's graphed.

So in the first part, there is freefall, meaning the supposed explosives already went off and the roofline started downward. Then all of a sudden there a measurement of no freefall. Then there's freefall.

What happened?

I thought the resistance below was blown away by explosives? Why did he record a sudden instance of no freefall?

OMFG

What a fucking tard! Go to high school for fuck sake.



freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s

Translation:

"Gamolon made me look stupid! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHH"

What does that line in the blue oval mean fuckstick? It's parallel to your red line!

 

[Gamolon]

freefall is a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s

No shit asshole.

I'm asking you why, per your own explanation, there is a section of the graph line PARALLEL to your red, no freefall line.

DERRRRRRPPPP!

 

[KokomoJojo]

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

Better explain that to Chandler...

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Seems to me you're just spewing crap all over and haven't even researched anything!

his statement is functionally correct and as expected your understanding is fucked

again

 

[Gamolon]

Once again.

That green graph line in the blue oval is PARALLEL to your red, no freefall line. What happened? I though WTC7 was in continuous freefall for 2.25 seconds?

You're all over the place Koko. That;s what happenes when you have your ass handed to you.

 

[Gamolon]

demolitions do not blow all columns "precisely" at the same instance.

Didnt you know that?

Better explain that to Chandler...

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Seems to me you're just spewing crap all over and haven't even researched anything!

his statement is functionally correct and as expected your understanding is fucked

again

Which contradicts what you said idiot!!!