The 2.25 seconds they admitted occurred. That freefall.
Or, are you just going to deny building 7 existed, too?
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
Or, are you just going to deny building 7 existed, too?
I already knew about this. This is not an explanation. This does not explain why the exterior columns buckled.
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
Did you miss the bit where they modelled the collapse?
MileHighMadness
Muse
No...it was faster then freefall. Which is explained by simple structural dynamics and Newtonian physics. No Controlled Demolition, no explosives. Come on FalseFlag, time to start living in the real world.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Again, you want me to quote large volumes of text.
Let's start here. You agree the building already started collapsing more than 10 seconds before the part you like to focus on? Baby steps, if you disagree you really need to explain why.
Last edited:
You would not understand the engineering; gee, you can' figure out 77 hit the Pentagon. How do you expect to do engineering?
You have offered zero evidence for all your claims, you support the liar Cole, and can't figure out 9/11 after investigations were complete years ago.
You offer no credible claims; you ask questions already answered, and can't do the required research.
NoahFence
Banned
Does controlled demolition? If so, could you cite any examples?
Please be specific, as I know you have this stuff off the top of your head, what with being so fixated on bringing truth to light and all.
massive aircraft going 500 mph. In case you were interested in the truth. ozeco41
Philosopher
Let me congratulate Falseflag on once again succeding in creating a derail.
This is how one of the current themes arose. FalseFlag JAQs a strawman:
It was "Determine technically, why and how the buildings WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed...."
..so BOTH "why?" and "how?"
BUT there is nothing in the four NIST objectives that requires NIST to investigate any bit of nonsense that the so called truthers may raise.
And "free fall' as raised by truthers is a bit of nonsense - the truther FALSE "meme" that free fall == cd.
Nothing in the NIST objectives says "Chase and rebut every bit of nonsense raised by conspiracy theorists or trolls on internet forums."
Free fall does not distinguish CD. AND deprived of that false line of support free fall itself is a not unexpected part of a chaotic collapse event. Not worthy of comment let alone anything needing justification. Free fall is ONLY an issue because truthers raise it dishonestly.
So we face three options:
1) Ignore the trolling/poeing;
2) Play whack-a-mole and chase him down the rabbit burrows of his derails; OR
3) Carve up and spit out the false foundation of his non argument.
This is how one of the current themes arose. FalseFlag JAQs a strawman:
jaydeehess asks the correct question:
FalseFlag presses the strawman. In two parts:
No one directly "calls" the straw man - still haven't AFAICS. BUT DGM raises a valid and related point:
So what was NIST's objective?I see you're back to arguing a technical report should be worded for laymen. Do you think the NIST should do a YouTube video?
It was "Determine technically, why and how the buildings WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed...."
..so BOTH "why?" and "how?"
BUT there is nothing in the four NIST objectives that requires NIST to investigate any bit of nonsense that the so called truthers may raise.
And "free fall' as raised by truthers is a bit of nonsense - the truther FALSE "meme" that free fall == cd.
Nothing in the NIST objectives says "Chase and rebut every bit of nonsense raised by conspiracy theorists or trolls on internet forums."
Free fall does not distinguish CD. AND deprived of that false line of support free fall itself is a not unexpected part of a chaotic collapse event. Not worthy of comment let alone anything needing justification. Free fall is ONLY an issue because truthers raise it dishonestly.
So we face three options:
1) Ignore the trolling/poeing;
2) Play whack-a-mole and chase him down the rabbit burrows of his derails; OR
3) Carve up and spit out the false foundation of his non argument.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
So we face three options:
1) Ignore the trolling/poeing;
2) Play whack-a-mole and chase him down the rabbit burrows of his derails; OR
3) Carve up and spit out the false foundation of his non argument.
4) See how he responds to the follow up posts where I steer him to the point I want to make.
I added one. Personally I think he will dodge it and then I will go back to ignoring him. Right now I'm going to bed.
No. Where did they model the actual collapse? I know they showed a computer model of something, but since it looked nothing like the actual collapse it must have been some sort of test or something. Please show me a computer model of the actual collapse, and the data used to generate the model.
Freefall is an issue because it was observed. Without a valid explanation of what was observed, their conclusions are incomplete and possibly not valid at all.
No. We are talking about the freefall that anyone can see for 2.25 seconds. We are talking about building 7.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
There is a valid explanation. Can you admit you've been ignoring 2/3's of the collapse?
WTC7 did not collapse faster than freefall for 2.25 seconds.
Gravity... you can't look up NIST, and you have no clue what gravity is.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How would you know? You have not read the report.