• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition

Shalamar said:
I'm still waiting for you to provide your credentials.
Click to expand...
You're still avoiding admitting that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.


BTW:I have no credentials nor are any necessary to read the NIST report, verifying David Chandlers findings, and understand that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

If you had a high school education, you would be able to understand plain English too.
 
Christopher7 said:
You're still avoiding admitting that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.


BTW:I have no credentials nor are any necessary to read the NIST report, verifying David Chandlers findings, and understand that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet.

If you had a high school education, you would be able to understand plain English too.
Click to expand...

I have more than a high school education. And I am capable of reading. I am also capable of reading what experts say on what happened. People who have the credentials.

So, you admit you have no credentials, and you also seem incapable of addressing what others have said about those specific NIST statements.

You can only parrot 'FREE FALL FREE FALL FREE FALL'. Would you like a cracker?
 
Shalamar said:
I have more than a high school education. And I am capable of reading. I am also capable of reading what experts say on what happened. People who have the credentials.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the experts at NIST when they say WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for 105 feet?
 
It's hilarious to see twoofers suddenly demand that everybody agree with the NIST experts when it suits their agenda but beforehand they were dismissing all the experts at NIST and the reports that they have produced.

Put this troll on ignore guys he is a proven liar and not worth the time.
 
Shalamar said:
But they did not say that.

You just want to believe they did.
Click to expand...
Please :rolleyes:

They said that!

[FONT=&quot]On NIST 1A pg 45 it says:
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration.[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot] This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

* 9-1 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7."[/FONT]
 
Ok Chris, I'll play along. "WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. What does this prove?? It does NOT prove controlled demolition. Controlled demolition involves months of planning, many many people involved in said plannning, many signs of explosives (ie: det cord in the building, blasting caps, series of VERY LOUD explosions, etc. etc. etc. ) interrior structure demolition, falling into a nice pile, (It was not a nice pile, look at the pictures, it damaged other buildings) etc. etc. etc.

What's your point??
 
Let me chime in here. Yeah, the supports were knocked out from under it, what would you expect it to do? Its really stupid to think that it would fail any other way, actually.

And when they say "the entire building" they mean the "entire part still standing" as much you could only see from the plaza side fell first.

But all those with any intelligence and honesty who read the reports knew this already.
 
Christopher7 said:
Please :rolleyes:

They said that!

[FONT=&quot]On NIST 1A pg 45 it says:
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration.[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot] This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft)"

The entire building* fell at free fall [gravitational] acceleration for 105 feet.

* 9-1 Vol.2 pg 588 [pdf 250]
"the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Unless you have the credentials, or you can find someone with proper credentials, I'll take TFK's previous post.

You seem to lack understanding on what was happening. You just read the magic words, and exclaim, "INSIDE JOB!"

If WTC 7 did fall at Freefall entirely... then what? What does it mean? Explosives? What explosives? The magic explosives that don't make noise?
 
Shalamar said:
You can only parrot 'FREE FALL FREE FALL FREE FALL'. Would you like a cracker?
Click to expand...

On behalf of parakeet owners everywhere, I take enormous offense to your comparing the intelligence of these clever creatures in any conceivable way, shape or form to that of Twoofers in general, or to Christopher7 in particular.:(
 
stateofgrace said:
It's hilarious to see twoofers suddenly demand that everybody agree with the NIST experts when it suits their agenda but beforehand they were dismissing all the experts at NIST and the reports that they have produced.
Click to expand...
Good point.

This is the one thing NIST and the independent researchers agree on. So why are you having a problem admitting that

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?
 
triforcharity said:
Ok Chris, I'll play along.[but not admit that] "WTC 7 fell at freefall speed. What does this prove?? It does NOT prove controlled demolition. Controlled demolition involves months of planning, many many people involved in said plannning, many signs of explosives (ie: det cord in the building, blasting caps, series of VERY LOUD explosions, etc. etc. etc. ) interrior structure demolition, falling into a nice pile, (It was not a nice pile, look at the pictures, it damaged other buildings) etc. etc. etc.

What's your point??
Click to expand...
I thought you'd never ask. :rolleyes:

WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet?

The NIST model does not.

Therefore a new, independent investigation is required to determine the cause of the free fall acceleration.
 
So Chris, What do you expect to find in this new investigation?? You might find an apple in the building, which could be turned into a bong for smoking weed, which might have caught the place on fire after one of the stoners dropped it trying to tie his shoe.

But, this is not going to be the conclusion. The thing that you "Truthers" waant to hear is that there waas explosives planted in the building before 9/11. But, the complexity, the planning, the amount of witnesses that this would entail, is astronomical to say the least.
What is going to happen if the new investigation agrees with everything that the NIST report does, but can prove that freefall waas cause because of X event?? What will happen?? Nothing. You will go into your cave and put your tinfoil hat back on.

So, what would this accomplish, OTHER than spending a metric TON of money on something, just because they can't explain one insignifficat (sp?) event?
 
BTW, a model will not explain EVER SINGLE DETAIL of ANY investigation. But, we can tell with a perponderance of the evidence what happened. You will NEVER be able to re-create the exact damage, the exact anything in a model. Why you ask?? Because there are too many variables. Unseen damage, placement of desks, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom