The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[KokomoJojo]

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!

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground. Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?

 

[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!

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass. Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?

Not in freefall yet???!!! Holy shit!. You really don't know what you're looking at do you???!!! No wonder you're so fucked up.


That blue oval with that section of the green graph line in it is right in the fucking middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Better explain that to Chandler...



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!!!

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless reading some trougher site and dont know what the fuck you are looking at AND

 

[KokomoJojo]

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!

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass. Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?

Not in freefall yet???!!! Holy shit!. You really don't know what you're looking at do you???!!! No wonder you're so fucked up.


That blue oval with that section of the green graph line in it is right in the fucking middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall.

so you think freefall is picture perfect ideal straight line?

what about the part that is faster than freefall LMAO

why are you in this thread you arent even qualified for high school at the rate you are going.

go to fucking school already, stop spewing the debunker bible of lunacy and use your own head.

 

[Gamolon]

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

 

[Gamolon]

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground.

This shows how kucking stupid you are.

Claiming that the section of no free fall in the MIDDLE of the 2.25 seconds was because it didn't reach free fall yet or met up with the mass at the ground!!!!!

Holy fuck my sides hurt from laughing!!!



And I thought Christophera was bad!

 

[KokomoJojo]

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.





you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.

 

[Montrovant]

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.





you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.

I came into this late, but what is supposed to be the explanation for why the building would fall at faster than freefall speeds at various points?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I came into this late, but what is supposed to be the explanation for why the building would fall at faster than freefall speeds at various points?

standard charting variance

 

[E.L.C.]

Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....

1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.

That's a lot of firsts! Any others?

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

So passenger jets running into skyscrapers suspends the laws of physics? That's a very interesting theory.... I suppose if Elvis Presley had leapt out from the debris pile singing "Great Balls Of Fire" you would attribute that to the airliners too.

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one of those "special" schools?

I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!

 

[Gamolon]

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.

Now you're showing you don't know the meaning of "paraphrase"?!?!?

It wasn't a paraphrase you freak. It was a DIRECT QUOTE. Here, I'll show you...

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground. Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?

What a jackass!!!

 

[Gamolon]

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.





you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.

Why was there a period of no free fall in the middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall?!

 

[Gamolon]

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and talcum powder from the top down, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that,

Talcum powder...



Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers? Let's see if your understanding of physics can provide an answer.

 

[Gamolon]

3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.

Can you show me an engineered demolition that caused these characteristics?

I'll wait here.

 

[daws101]

fun read guys!
gotta point out some major twoofer intentional misrepresentations..
1.the no planes hit wtc 7 ploy is a half truth..
it's designed to make the tin asshats "think" (and I use that word in its loosest definition.) that the jet did not cause any damage to wtc 7.
nothing could be further from the truth(place irony here).
the jet caused the north tower to collapse and many tons of debris from it smashed into wtc7 ...
2.the laws of physics were suspended ploy is an out and out whopper..there is no anecdotal or physical evidence,to backup that steaming pile...
you'd think after all this time they'd have come up with some new bullshit!

 

[Montrovant]

Not just one, but several "firsts" in the history of architecture on 9/11....

1. First time a steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire.... Never before or since 9/11 has any steel framed build ever collapsed due to fire.
2. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever completely pulverized all the contents of a building to dust.... Desks, chairs, carpet, glass, concrete, computers, file cabinets, people, etc. all reduced to dust.
3. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused steel to melt.... Metallurgical studies on WTC steel reveal intergranular melting of steel structural building components making solid steel girders appear like Swiss cheese.
4. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever caused concrete to melt.... Guns from WTC 6 now on display at the NYC police museum encased in molten concrete.
5. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever resulted in a eutectic reaction.... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron and oxygen, rich in sulfur, observed to have attacked steel structural building components.
6. First time a non-engineered gravitational collapse ever occured at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.... WTC 7 observed falling for 2.5 seconds (105 feet) at "free fall" gravitational acceleration.

That's a lot of firsts! Any others?

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

So passenger jets running into skyscrapers suspends the laws of physics? That's a very interesting theory.... I suppose if Elvis Presley had leapt out from the debris pile singing "Great Balls Of Fire" you would attribute that to the airliners too.

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one of those "special" schools?

I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!

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.

Besides, what laws of physics were suspended? Please provide both the law and how it is supposed to have been suspended by the planes being the original cause of the collapses.

You are not bringing anything new to this. These have been gone over and over again on these forums. I am completely confident that, no matter the responses I or anyone else might give you, you will continue to believe the towers were reduced to talcum powder, that the free fall collapse is incontrovertible proof of demolition, or any number of other truther talking points.

Feel free to put more words in my mouth if you reply to this post!

 

[KokomoJojo]

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.

Now you're showing you don't know the meaning of "paraphrase"?!?!?

It wasn't a paraphrase you freak. It was a DIRECT QUOTE. Here, I'll show you...

because it was not in freefall yet dumbass or because it caught up with the mass piling up on the ground. Do you enjoy proving you are tarded or something?

What a jackass!!!

hey shit fer brains freefall starts about .7 seconds. I know fresh air is poison to you but pull your head out of your ass anyway.

got any more strawmen you want me to torch for you on your way over my knee for yet another good ass whooping?

no it dont, you already shown us in every post that you are fucking fizix clueless

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.





you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.






dumbass fucking troll!

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and talcum powder from the top down, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that,

Talcum powder...



Why isn't it possible for the top to complete collapse the towers? Let's see if your understanding of physics can provide an answer.

He did not say talcum poweder.

Still begging for free physics lessons huh?

I'm looking at the video of the towers being reduced to steel and dust FROM THE TOP DOWN, and you're actually able to assert (presumably with a straight face) that not only was gravity responsible for that, but also all of the other "Firsts" I listed too? Did you actually go to school? Was it one of those "special" schools?

I think you're on the wrong forum. Google "Sci-Fi fantasy fiction writers forums" and join one.... they'll love it!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Is that why you said the building wasn;t in free fall yet even though the graph line I circled with the blue oval is right in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of supposed free fall?

You make this too easy moron.

you are totally fucking clueless dont fucking paraphrase what I said or claim using your fucked up understanding and idiocy.





you have proven yourself to be over the top fucking stoopid.

Why was there a period of no free fall in the middle of the supposed 2.25 seconds of free fall?!

Its not "supposed" tardo troll its a fact.

FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THERE ARE 3 PERIODS OF FASTER THAN FREEFALL in the middle of the 2.25 seconds of free fall ADMITTED BY NIST.

Why not first graduate high school before trying to argue with adults.

 

[E.L.C.]

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.