• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST engineer John Gross interview

Let's go back to that earlier attempt on the WTC, GMotives. Let's presume for discussion that it was successful. The bomb went off and the building collapsed.

What would be more important?

A. Modeling the collapse.

B. Modeling the damage the bomb did and how the collapse began.
 
I propose an addendum to the NIST report. It would be titled "Explanation of Events Following Collapse Initiation"

The text of the addendum should read, "Gravity"
 
GMotive, all you talk about how N.I.S.T is wrong with it's testing methods and at the same time do not prove any of their methods to be wrong. Why is that?? Is it because that when you tried to read it you did not understand it??

Now can you please show these good gentlemen what testing methods you use to come to the conclusion that it was a CD?? You come over here flapping your lip and blowing smoke, but yet have said nothing new. Now instead of saying it was an inside job, just put up or go back to the others of your kind. These people are getting bored to death with your rhetoric.


: I see you're playing stupid again, looks like you're winning :
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom