WTC7 and the NIST free fall failure

tsig said:
Yea, the fact that someone else did it too always worked for me in the third grade, you must have went to the same school.

Good old Ignatius Reform Institute known affectionately as IggyRI.
Click to expand...
IggyRI? ...some metaphor in the sounding? ...talking in the third person.
Same school. A little anxious may be.
 
achimspok said:
Cam 3
[qimg]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6567/c3view.gif[/qimg]

Top view
[qimg]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2995/topview.gif[/qimg]

Sorry, there is just inward bowing without vertical component prior to FREE FALL. What you call "inconstant rates" is just the transition from fall of the screenwall into bowing of the parapet wall into the falling of the perimeter. No reflecting of buckling whatsoever. The NE corner tilted north while bowing, that's it.
Click to expand...

Curious. What would make a building bow inward?
 
alienentity said:
Are you now denying that Iraq had WMD programs?
Click to expand...

Achimspok said nothing of the sort. The *WMD* controversy relates to the reasons for going to war in Iraq - including the now discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be used within 45 minutes of an order being given.

Such has been made quite clear and public in the UK through the Iraq Enquiry (Chilcot).
 
alienentity said:
Answered above. Conversation is complete. Oh, we weren't having one. Fine.
Let's end the discussion we weren't having then. :p

Ah, denial, it's so reflexive and..... how shall I say..repetitive.
Click to expand...
Psst, you looks like an (*****) and you don't get it.
 
I've been dealing with 20" of snow and have been reading this during breaks. Did I miss where it was explained what the point is?
 
alienentity said:
We're dying to know..:crowded:
Click to expand...
Psst, you might not understand the meaning. Stay quit until you're absolutely sure that you got it.

Sorry alienentity I tried to warn you but "This forum requires that you wait 60 seconds between posts. Please try again in 11 seconds." Sorry.
 
achimspok said:
In other words, NIST did not measure the parapet wall! They measured the fall of the screenwall about 2 floor heights above the parapet wall.
Click to expand...

Strikes me that the o/p may be wrong from the outset.

achimspok's stills and graphics include the E Penthouse in place. However, at the beginning of measurements of individual pixels at the beginning of descent the E Penthouse has already disappeared, leaving the parapet wall clearly outlined against the brighter sky for about 40% of its width.

Looks like a red herring to me, and one of zero value even if it were green.
 
femr2 said:
You cannot determime the location of the roofline whilst the penthouses are still present. There is simply not enough contrast in ANY footage.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can, and I did. I'm sorry you cannot, but that doesn't affect the certainty that I did.
 
achimspok said:
Let's start with CNN:
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=PM:US
Go on an goole for Blix or Powell and WDM ...

If you have any further questions about that topic, please do it in a new thread. I will come over and help you out with some facts.
Click to expand...

hehe. Nice dodge. I followed most of Blix's statements during the period.

The existence of WMD's was not merely hypothetical. It was a fact. Nothing you do is going to change that fact.

You may attempt to narrow the context to only include the period around 2003, in which case UNSCOM had already destroyed the weapons.
You may correctly ascertain the Bush administration was wrong, or was even lying about the continued existence of them.

But the programs and the weapons are an historical fact.


Quite unlike the unicorn CD explosives of 9/11 Truth, which never did exist, according to reasonable standards of evidence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If you're scientifically illiterate enough to use that meaningless collection of word salad, please feel free to call it that.

Dave
Click to expand...
Oh, do you say that some "faster than free fall buckling" is sientifically impossible? If you are right then... Wow, the the NIST theory might be sientifically wrong.
 
Sabretooth said:
From what, though? What caused the core to drop?

What I'm getting at is; how does this inward bowing fit in with the theory that WTC7 did not collapse via 7+ hours of uncontrolled fires?
Click to expand...
Obviously we share the same questions.

Hey, this is a good post! Move on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom