The NIST 9-11 Report on the WTC Collapse

[KokomoJojo]

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.

still trying to capitalize on his corrected typo huh, how fucking lame.

not surprising that you think aliens scooped up and carried the steel a block away then threw it on the neighboring buildings huh.

 

[KokomoJojo]

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

yes you did...we all read it

you're talking out your ass as always..
here's the non cherry picked original statement #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

if you are seeing any reference to new physics you are either reading in or hallucinating or lying..

we have seen enough of your fizix to last a lifetime but the comedic value wears off quickly.


Truthers put of graphs and charts




that you do not know how to correctly by scientific method understand or grasp and respond with your usual



shit slinging ad hominem name calling or absolutely ridiculous arguments with the expectation truthers are required to teach tards physics.

its the same group of science rejects I have encountered on other boards.





too fucking stoopid to understand how to chart data or grasp the meaning of the results.

Trougher tards subtract from any debate by injecting frivolous bullshit.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

still trying to capitalize on his corrected typo huh, how fucking lame.

not surprising that you think aliens scooped up and carried the steel a block away then threw it on the neighboring buildings huh.

You're clueless and are adding nothing to this conversation. Back on ignore you go.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Are you claiming that there wasn't enough mass to shear the structure apart? You have to be because as you keep claiming that the concrete and multi-ton steel components were ejected outward, leaving "no mass above the intact structure".

So explain.

How did you come to the assumptions that:

1. All the concrete was ejected outward
2. All the steel inside the perimeter columns was ejected outward

This is your first problem.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

still trying to capitalize on his corrected typo huh, how fucking lame.

not surprising that you think aliens scooped up and carried the steel a block away then threw it on the neighboring buildings huh.

You're clueless and are adding nothing to this conversation. Back on ignore you go.

thanks!

you are fucktard TROLL and subtracting from it!

you are always welcome back if you ever get above the level of abject troll fucktard.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Are you claiming that there wasn't enough mass to shear the structure apart? You have to be because as you keep claiming that the concrete and multi-ton steel components were ejected outward, leaving "no mass above the intact structure".

So explain.

How did you come to the assumptions that:

1. All the concrete was ejected outward
2. All the steel inside the perimeter columns was ejected outward

This is your first problem.

Being put on iggy can be a can be a beautiful thing!

Saves so much typing.

ELC dont you love the way that dishonest tard frames his argument NOT within your parameters but creates a strawmen to redefine your position within his impossible or otherwise bullshit parameters!

The only way he can feel like he scored a point in his pea brain is to fabricate a totally bullshit argument on top of yours redirecting to anything superficial!

Like with the chart, he cherry picked one section of the data set reading it as less than freefall while completely ignoring and pretending that the 3 sections of faster than freefall.

Thats as fraudulent and dishonest as it gets.

Now you are in his sites

SSDD



Fortunately he is not immune to



and put me on iggy

 

[daws101]

Really Big Bump!

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

 

[eots]

Really Big Bump!

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

yes you did...we all read it

 

[daws101]

Really Big Bump!

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

yes you did...we all read it

you're talking out your ass as always..
here's the non cherry picked original statement #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

if you are seeing any reference to new physics you are either reading in or hallucinating or lying..

 

[KokomoJojo]

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

yes you did...we all read it

you're talking out your ass as always..
here's the non cherry picked original statement #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

if you are seeing any reference to new physics you are either reading in or hallucinating or lying..

we have seen enough of your fizix to last a lifetime but the comedic value wears off quickly.


Truthers put of graphs and charts




that you do not know how to correctly by scientific method understand or grasp and because of your ignorance are only capable of responding with your usual



shit slinging ad hominem name calling or absolutely ridiculous arguments with the expectation truthers are required to teach tards physics.

its the same group of science rejects I have encountered on other boards.

too fucking stoopid to understand how to chart data or grasp the meaning of the results.

Trougher tards subtract from any debate by injecting frivolous bullshit.

 

[E.L.C.]

You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).

So, daws101, here's the full quote....

"another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

You did say that "newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

What other physics were you talking about?

 

[daws101]

yes you did...we all read it

you're talking out your ass as always..
here's the non cherry picked original statement #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

if you are seeing any reference to new physics you are either reading in or hallucinating or lying..

we have seen enough of your fizix to last a lifetime but the comedic value wears off quickly.


Truthers put of graphs and charts




that you do not know how to correctly by scientific method understand or grasp and because of your ignorance are only capable of responding with your usual



shit slinging ad hominem name calling or absolutely ridiculous arguments with the expectation truthers are required to teach tards physics.

its the same group of science rejects I have encountered on other boards.

too fucking stoopid to understand how to chart data or grasp the meaning of the results.

Trougher tards subtract from any debate by injecting frivolous bullshit.

yes dear..

 

[daws101]

You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).

So, daws101, here's the full quote....

"another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

You did say that "newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

What other physics were you talking about?

wrong! that's not the full quote..
this is: #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..
you are the complainants/ plain·tiff [pleyn-tif]
noun Law.
a person who brings suit in a court (opposed to defendant)"-daws

 

[E.L.C.]

Alright then you little hair splitting moron....

What did the whole fucking quote mean?

 

[daws101]

Alright then you little hair splitting moron....

What did the whole fucking quote mean?

nothing little about me..
which part?
the one you're trying and failing to find fault with?
or the correct description of plaintiffs like yourselves in this debate..?

 

[E.L.C.]

Which part?

How about any part?

 

[E.L.C.]

I'm cherry picking when I ask what one part means, and if I ask what the whole thing means he asks me what part! He thinks like a penis.... only smaller!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Really Big Bump!

way to to completely misrepresent!
I did not state, infer,hint at or otherwise indicate any "new physics"

yes you did...we all read it

yep and when busted red handed the crying starts

and we hear

Do you believe there were 52 chocolate chip cookies with 5 chocolate chips per cookie or 51 cookies with 6 chocolate chips?

1) How do you know they were chocolate chip cookies?
2) Are you sure they were not raisin cookies.
3) How do you know there was more than one cookie.
4) Are you sure the spacing between chips were the same.
5) How do you know you wont get one chocolate chip per bite.


when that fails in comes the next sock for the impass.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'm cherry picking when I ask what one part means, and if I ask what the whole thing means he asks me what part! He thinks like a penis.... only smaller!

because these people cant answer one question. If you could be a fly on the wall you would see they run over to jrand and ask their flunky debunker pals how to respond. I have challenged them on an open board many times and yep you got it they cowar and run with their tail between their legs as fast as they can get out of dodge. lol

Like that one poster um 911 something always said they spend all their time shitting on threads to keep people who would like to have a rational discussion chasing red herring bullshit.

They detract from every thread they are in.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You raise a couple of good points Gamolon and I'll get to your posts this evening (busy day ahead).

So, daws101, here's the full quote....

"another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

You did say that "newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day..."

What other physics were you talking about?

wrong! that's not the full quote..
this is: #post 643 "another wannabe physics douche bag...
newtonian physics were not the only physics at play that day...

and as to who has to explain what is on you tin foil ass hats to prove your assertions /allegations have any merit..

yep look at that he certainly said it didnt he!