Time to put up or shut up.

[Patriot911]

The entire building fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

No, the North face of the building fell at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. The overall collapse was 40% slower than free fall acceleration. Both of these facts come from the NIST report on the collapse.

Of course, PE, having never actually READ the NIST report, has no clue that there was significant collapse of the interior of the building before the exterior collapsed. An interior collapse means structures HE claims the collapse would have to "go through" are already gone.

You are 110% wrong and misleading this person by posting FALSE facts.

NIST stated it was 40% of freefall, but then were challenged by AE911Truth.org and David Chandler, which forced them to admit to freefall, for 2-3 seconds.

Damn you are seriously fucking stupid, aren't you! Read the NIST report. It shows three distinct stages with the overall result being the collapse took 40% longer than free fall. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact no matter how much you whine to your mama about the big bad debunker who keeps making you look like a retarded fool.

You need to stop spreading fallacies and planting misleading information. Stop directing people to the NIST report, and cite some actually facts, such as Newtonian Physics.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between lies and truth. See, what YOU do is lies, what I do is expose the truth to your lies.

Page 87 of the PDF

You have yet to provide anything but commentary.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still a lie. Maybe some day when you grow up and grow a pair of balls you will understand this simple concept.

 

[PhysicsExist]

No, the North face of the building fell at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. The overall collapse was 40% slower than free fall acceleration. Both of these facts come from the NIST report on the collapse.

Of course, PE, having never actually READ the NIST report, has no clue that there was significant collapse of the interior of the building before the exterior collapsed. An interior collapse means structures HE claims the collapse would have to "go through" are already gone.

You are 110% wrong and misleading this person by posting FALSE facts.

NIST stated it was 40% of freefall, but then were challenged by AE911Truth.org and David Chandler, which forced them to admit to freefall, for 2-3 seconds.

Damn you are seriously fucking stupid, aren't you! Read the NIST report. It shows three distinct stages with the overall result being the collapse took 40% longer than free fall. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact no matter how much you whine to your mama about the big bad debunker who keeps making you look like a retarded fool.

You need to stop spreading fallacies and planting misleading information. Stop directing people to the NIST report, and cite some actually facts, such as Newtonian Physics.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between lies and truth. See, what YOU do is lies, what I do is expose the truth to your lies.

Page 87 of the PDF

You have yet to provide anything but commentary.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still a lie. Maybe some day when you grow up and grow a pair of balls you will understand this simple concept.

Good job ignoring this part:

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So the fact that the penthouse fell something like 9 seconds before the rest of the building has nothing to do with it?

 

[Gamolon]

You are 110% wrong and misleading this person by posting FALSE facts.

NIST stated it was 40% of freefall, but then were challenged by AE911Truth.org and David Chandler, which forced them to admit to freefall, for 2-3 seconds.

Damn you are seriously fucking stupid, aren't you! Read the NIST report. It shows three distinct stages with the overall result being the collapse took 40% longer than free fall. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact no matter how much you whine to your mama about the big bad debunker who keeps making you look like a retarded fool.


Maybe you don't understand the difference between lies and truth. See, what YOU do is lies, what I do is expose the truth to your lies.

Page 87 of the PDF


No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still a lie. Maybe some day when you grow up and grow a pair of balls you will understand this simple concept.

Good job ignoring this part:

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

Just curious PE. What is Sunder speaking about? Did you even listen to Chandler's question? Did Chandler ask about a PORTION of the building falling at freefall or did Chandler refer to the entire collapse at freefall?

 

[PhysicsExist]

Damn you are seriously fucking stupid, aren't you! Read the NIST report. It shows three distinct stages with the overall result being the collapse took 40% longer than free fall. This isn't an opinion. This is a fact no matter how much you whine to your mama about the big bad debunker who keeps making you look like a retarded fool.


Maybe you don't understand the difference between lies and truth. See, what YOU do is lies, what I do is expose the truth to your lies.

Page 87 of the PDF


No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it is still a lie. Maybe some day when you grow up and grow a pair of balls you will understand this simple concept.

Good job ignoring this part:

As this statement implied, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall, assuming a non-engineered collapse, would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning basic laws of Newtonian physics. Explaining why not during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, NIST’s Shyam Sunder said:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”53

In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s theory that the building was brought down by fire, which, if it could have produced a collapse of any type, could have produced only a progressive collapse.

In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was allowed to submit a question at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”54 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone understanding elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”55 (This is, of course, free fall through the air, not through a vacuum.)

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

Just curious PE. What is Sunder speaking about? Did you even listen to Chandler's question? Did Chandler ask about a PORTION of the building falling at freefall or did Chandler refer to the entire collapse at freefall?

NIST would ONLY admit to 2.25 seconds, any more it could of blown the roof off NIST report. 2.25 is all you need, im talking NEWTONIAN PHYSICS. They exist in our reality, so for a building to freefall as fast as if it were falling through air, how is that possible? It isnt, unless the floors are not there providing no support, leaving the path of greatest resistance non-existent. Office fires cannot do this. (Videos would show bowing of structure on the outside) instead it shows the penthouse collapsing around 3 seconds before the entire collapse. What removed those floors is the question? NIST report has released no credible information on this, thus the challenge by Architects and Engineers, and NIST was forced to change their findings. We are talking about the instance of IMPOSSIBILITY. 9/11 did not rewrite Isaac Newton's findings.

 

[Gamolon]

Here is Chandler's question.

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this claiming 40% slower then freefall based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?

Can you please point out to me in that question where Chandler differentiates between asking about a PART of the collapse being at freefall and the ENTIRE collapse being at freefall?

It is quite clear to me that Sunder is speaking about the ENTIRE facade collapse taking 40% longer to descend than if it had collapsed at freefall. Are you saying the facade DID collapse entirely at freefall? If you are, I suggest you look at the videos and figure this out for yourself.

 

[Gamolon]

Good job ignoring this part:


Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

Just curious PE. What is Sunder speaking about? Did you even listen to Chandler's question? Did Chandler ask about a PORTION of the building falling at freefall or did Chandler refer to the entire collapse at freefall?

NIST would ONLY admit to 2.25 seconds, any more it could of blown the roof off NIST report. 2.25 is all you need, im talking NEWTONIAN PHYSICS. They exist in our reality, so for a building to freefall as fast as if it were falling through air, how is that possible? It isnt, unless the floors are not there providing no support, leaving the path of greatest resistance non-existent. Office fires cannot do this. (Videos would show bowing of structure on the outside) instead it shows the penthouse collapsing around 3 seconds before the entire collapse. What removed those floors is the question? NIST report has released no credible information on this, thus the challenge by Architects and Engineers, and NIST was forced to change their findings. We are talking about the instance of IMPOSSIBILITY. 9/11 did not rewrite Isaac Newton's findings.

The floors were supported on one side by the facade wall columns right? What were the other sides of the floors and beams supported by?

 

[Gamolon]

Office fires cannot do this.

Are you suggesting that office fires cannot affect steel components in any way and make them fail/collapse?

 

[Patriot911]

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

You need to look at the facts. The report I posted is the final report dated November 2008 directly from the NIST site. There IS no changed report. Just more lies from a proven liar and truthtard.

But hey. It is easy enough to prove. Go ahead and post the later NIST report. You've made the report. Now back it up if you can.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

You need to look at the facts. The report I posted is the final report dated November 2008 directly from the NIST site. There IS no changed report. Just more lies from a proven liar and truthtard.

But hey. It is easy enough to prove. Go ahead and post the later NIST report. You've made the report. Now back it up if you can.

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Your response to this fact? Stop posting fallacies. NIST changed their report, you are posting outdated information.

You need to look at the facts. The report I posted is the final report dated November 2008 directly from the NIST site. There IS no changed report. Just more lies from a proven liar and truthtard.

But hey. It is easy enough to prove. Go ahead and post the later NIST report. You've made the report. Now back it up if you can.

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/ame]

 

[PhysicsExist]

You need to look at the facts. The report I posted is the final report dated November 2008 directly from the NIST site. There IS no changed report. Just more lies from a proven liar and truthtard.

But hey. It is easy enough to prove. Go ahead and post the later NIST report. You've made the report. Now back it up if you can.

In its final report on WTC 7, which came out in November 2008, NIST – rather amazingly – admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”56 NIST thereby accepted Chandler’s case – except for maintaining that the building was in absolute free fall for only 2.25, not 2.5, seconds (a trivial difference). NIST thereby affirmed a miracle, meaning a violation of one or more laws of physics.

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/ame]

Did you just post a video of a different buildilng? That's not WTC7...why would you 'quote me' and 'bold' my sentence, and then post a video of a buildling we arent even talking about? Now, please. Read the whole message. Absorb it, stop picking out sentences and posting random responses. Rebuttal my message with FACTS. Give me a reason why WTC7 showed ZERO structural bowing/bending on the outer facade for the whole 5 hours it burnt? Why did it freefall through the path of greatest resistance? Where did the floors go? How did it fall as fast as gravity and air? Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, and only explosives can. Just like in your video, a perfect example of why WTC7 could ONLY of been a demolition.

 

[candycorn]

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/ame]

Did you just post a video of a different buildilng? That's not WTC7...why would you 'quote me' and 'bold' my sentence, and then post a video of a buildling we arent even talking about? Now, please. Read the whole message. Absorb it, stop picking out sentences and posting random responses. Rebuttal my message with FACTS. Give me a reason why WTC7 showed ZERO structural bowing/bending on the outer facade for the whole 5 hours it burnt? Why did it freefall through the path of greatest resistance? Where did the floors go? How did it fall as fast as gravity and air? Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, and only explosives can. Just like in your video, a perfect example of why WTC7 could ONLY of been a demolition.

Wow, you should try to do something about all of that. I didn't read any of it but theres plenty of words there; I'm sure you have a point somewhere. Take it to court and get some indictments.

What are you afraid of Lucy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/ame]

Did you just post a video of a different buildilng? That's not WTC7...why would you 'quote me' and 'bold' my sentence, and then post a video of a buildling we arent even talking about? Now, please. Read the whole message. Absorb it, stop picking out sentences and posting random responses. Rebuttal my message with FACTS. Give me a reason why WTC7 showed ZERO structural bowing/bending on the outer facade for the whole 5 hours it burnt? Why did it freefall through the path of greatest resistance? Where did the floors go? How did it fall as fast as gravity and air? Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, and only explosives can. Just like in your video, a perfect example of why WTC7 could ONLY of been a demolition.

YOU claimed a building can not fall at free fall without having shown outside evidence that the interior supports have buckled or collapsed. The video clearly shows you are mistaken.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You tried to say the buildling only fell at 40% freefall, just like NIST tried to do. You mislead the person asking the question by purposefully ignoring the 2.25 seconds of freefall NIST admitted AFTER being confronted by Architects and Engineers. That is why you are posting fallacies, and that is why I accuse you of posting misinformation. You know nothing but to direct people to the NIST report, and only quote certain already bias references from it, which serve no purpose to the facts. Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, especially without showing any structural support damage on the facade/supports before collapse.

Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/ame]

Did you just post a video of a different buildilng? That's not WTC7...why would you 'quote me' and 'bold' my sentence, and then post a video of a buildling we arent even talking about? Now, please. Read the whole message. Absorb it, stop picking out sentences and posting random responses. Rebuttal my message with FACTS. Give me a reason why WTC7 showed ZERO structural bowing/bending on the outer facade for the whole 5 hours it burnt? Why did it freefall through the path of greatest resistance? Where did the floors go? How did it fall as fast as gravity and air? Objects do not fall at freefall acceleration through eachother. It is impossible. Unless one of the objects is removed, which fire cannot achieve, and only explosives can. Just like in your video, a perfect example of why WTC7 could ONLY of been a demolition.

Now how can anyone explain something to you that didn't happen? You said it fell at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance which is not true. We know for fact that the interior of the building collapsed before the facade showed any signs of it. The penthouse falling before the facade proved that the interior supports were already gone. Is that so difficult to understand? And why were they gone? Primarily due to fire. Though I still believe the damages on the south of the building had a bigger role than the NIST gives it credit for, but hey, there are no experts here.

 

[PhysicsExist]

You said it fell at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance which is not true.

Hmm. I dont mean to be rude but, The path of greatest resistance is the support and structure itself, correct? So if it fell into its own footprint, it went through that path. And if it fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds at least, then there is a huge problem according to Newtonian Physics, because that is only possible if the resistance was completely removed. Which fire cannot do. (<-Read this sentence multiple times.)

We know for fact that the interior of the building collapsed before the facade showed any signs of it.

The interior collapsed. that is correct. How did it fall? Fires cannot melt steel. If it bowed/weakened the steel, we would of seen signs of it by the structure altering shapes in places, which it did none of. The interior collapsed a FEW SECONDS before the entire building collapsed, it is on video.

The penthouse falling before the facade proved that the interior supports were already gone. Is that so difficult to understand? And why were they gone? Primarily due to fire.

How could an entity (fire) in our reality that does not reach half temperatures needed to melt steel, completely destroy and remove 8 floors in 5 hours? That is impossible.

Though I still believe the damages on the south of the building had a bigger role than the NIST gives it credit for, but hey, there are no experts here.

So when NIST says something you like you'll use it, but when they mention something that contradicts what you like you'll just blow it off...? NIST stated the south tower played no role in the collapse of the buildings. They had to admit to that, and were only be able to use FIRE as their use for a Symmetrical collapse at freefall speed, which pointed out by 1,400 architects and engineers that that is impossible.

If you REALLY want to put your heart into this debate and actually have NO BIAS, then you need to watch the other side and listen.

http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth#p/u/12/-3zBGL40orc

Take a look at that, 33 minutes. 33 minutes of your life. That's all I ask. Please sir.

Thank you.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You said it fell at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance which is not true.

Hmm. I dont mean to be rude but, The path of greatest resistance is the support and structure itself, correct? So if it fell into its own footprint, it went through that path. And if it fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds at least, then there is a huge problem according to Newtonian Physics, because that is only possible if the resistance was completely removed. Which fire cannot do. (<-Read this sentence multiple times.)

We know for fact that the interior of the building collapsed before the facade showed any signs of it.

The interior collapsed. that is correct. How did it fall? Fires cannot melt steel. If it bowed/weakened the steel, we would of seen signs of it by the structure altering shapes in places, which it did none of. The interior collapsed a FEW SECONDS before the entire building collapsed, it is on video.

The penthouse falling before the facade proved that the interior supports were already gone. Is that so difficult to understand? And why were they gone? Primarily due to fire.

How could an entity (fire) in our reality that does not reach half temperatures needed to melt steel, completely destroy and remove 8 floors in 5 hours? That is impossible.

Though I still believe the damages on the south of the building had a bigger role than the NIST gives it credit for, but hey, there are no experts here.

So when NIST says something you like you'll use it, but when they mention something that contradicts what you like you'll just blow it off...? NIST stated the south tower played no role in the collapse of the buildings. They had to admit to that, and were only be able to use FIRE as their use for a Symmetrical collapse at freefall speed, which pointed out by 1,400 architects and engineers that that is impossible.

If you REALLY want to put your heart into this debate and actually have NO BIAS, then you need to watch the other side and listen.

http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth#p/u/12/-3zBGL40orc

Take a look at that, 33 minutes. 33 minutes of your life. That's all I ask. Please sir.

Thank you.

Seen it. Please provide any audio that may be available of the explosions that brought down this building. And kindly produce any witnesses who saw the flashes. As stated in the video.

 

[PhysicsExist]

You said it fell at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance which is not true.

Hmm. I dont mean to be rude but, The path of greatest resistance is the support and structure itself, correct? So if it fell into its own footprint, it went through that path. And if it fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds at least, then there is a huge problem according to Newtonian Physics, because that is only possible if the resistance was completely removed. Which fire cannot do. (<-Read this sentence multiple times.)


The interior collapsed. that is correct. How did it fall? Fires cannot melt steel. If it bowed/weakened the steel, we would of seen signs of it by the structure altering shapes in places, which it did none of. The interior collapsed a FEW SECONDS before the entire building collapsed, it is on video.


How could an entity (fire) in our reality that does not reach half temperatures needed to melt steel, completely destroy and remove 8 floors in 5 hours? That is impossible.

Though I still believe the damages on the south of the building had a bigger role than the NIST gives it credit for, but hey, there are no experts here.

So when NIST says something you like you'll use it, but when they mention something that contradicts what you like you'll just blow it off...? NIST stated the south tower played no role in the collapse of the buildings. They had to admit to that, and were only be able to use FIRE as their use for a Symmetrical collapse at freefall speed, which pointed out by 1,400 architects and engineers that that is impossible.

If you REALLY want to put your heart into this debate and actually have NO BIAS, then you need to watch the other side and listen.

http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth#p/u/12/-3zBGL40orc

Take a look at that, 33 minutes. 33 minutes of your life. That's all I ask. Please sir.

Thank you.

Seen it. Please provide any audio that may be available of the explosions that brought down this building. And kindly produce any witnesses who saw the flashes. As stated in the video.

Defying Newtonian physics isnt enough to convince you something is wrong?

Here's the links you asked for:

Firefighter talking about explosions through building: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCTuhxS6LCU[/ame]

Violent explosions on video: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2yKp39khqI[/ame]

Firemen talk about explosions: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG6XORwlJ0Y[/ame]

Flashes popping during wtc7 collapse: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10[/ame]

Possible shockwave: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0xu0MKQTI&feature=related[/ame]

Explosions in the whole lobby: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4&feature=related[/ame]

Explosion witnesses: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk[/ame]

I can keep going but thats enough for now.

What do you think? I really hope you're not leading me on. Please keep an open mind. All you need is logic. Dont think about the implications, just think about physics and the video evidence. The witness testimonies, the countless anomalies around 9/11, and the professionals and victims coming out in support of a new investigation.

Thanks for not attacking me.

 

[DiveCon]

explosions do not always require explosives
i'm not gonna watch all those videos because i have watched SO many in the past that have never once shown any proof, so i doubt any of these will either

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wow, you are expanding to all the buildings now, I thought this was about building 7.

Video 1. So there were secondary explosions when he reached the 44th floor of some building, OK where were the explosions, they didn't bring the building down.

Video 2. Explosions without audio?

Video 3. Secondary explosions are not demolitions

Video 4. Again no Audio

Video 5. Flashes? Or reflection of the circling police helicopters? And still no audio of explosions.

Video 6. The lobby was hit by the explosions coming out of the elevators, you should know this.

Video 7. Nothing but rumors and more secondary explosions, No explosions that could be called controlled demolition.

Have any of you paid any attention to what a controlled demo sounds like?