• 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 Errors

Jaytje46

Muse
J
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
507
Location
Usa
Seems the dolts are suing NIST :eek:

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/760...ick-harrison-and-ted-walter-on-9-11-free-fall

And they have their own website! http://nisterrors.com/

" 1. If you are seeking a place to expose NIST fraud, waste and abuse, particularly in regards to NIST’s World Trade Center reports on Buildings 1, 2, or 7, you’ve come to the right place.

2. If you are a NIST employee or member of the general public, this site provides information
on the scientific errors that were made in NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 released in November 2008."
Click to expand...

So does this mean that they are ok with NIST report of WTC 1 and 2? :jaw-dropp :boxedin:
 
First line on the website - "This week on 9/11 Free Fall, ..."

They have a weekly show about an empty building that fell down 20 years ago?
 
carlitos said:
First line on the website - "This week on 9/11 Free Fall, ..."

They have a weekly show about an empty building that fell down 20 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes. And the host believes that no plane crashed into the Pentagon. That sort of lunatic.
 
bknight said:
The CTs always leave out the word "nearly" before free fall.
Click to expand...

Why should they put that word there?

We've been discussing this for 12 years now, and for at least 11 years, it has been confirmed and agreed that indeed some spots on the north wall roofline descended AT freefall acceleration on average for a brief period of time (and quite likely, momentarily even BEYOND g). Are you under the impression that this is a problem, or why else do you refuse to allow for yourself the possibility, probability, reality of freefall acceleration?
 
Oystein said:
Why should they put that word there?

We've been discussing this for 12 years now, and for at least 11 years, it has been confirmed and agreed that indeed some spots on the north wall roofline descended AT freefall acceleration on average for a brief period of time (and quite likely, momentarily even BEYOND g). Are you under the impression that this is a problem, or why else do you refuse to allow for yourself the possibility, probability, reality of freefall acceleration?
Click to expand...

I'm not precluding that the buildings would fall at nearly free fall, but that word brings more in focus to the facts and takes away the free fall as a "proof" that CDs brought down the towers. Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.
 
bknight said:
I'm not precluding that the buildings would fall at nearly free fall
Click to expand...

The smarter of the Truthers in 2021 don't claim any longer that the twins fell at or even just nearly free fall acceleration. That word is reserved for the roofline of WTC7's north wall (which Truthers invalidly equate with "the building", of course).

Would you preclude that the roofline would fall at fully free fall?

Truthers are correct that free fall acceleration was observed.
 
Oystein said:
The smarter of the Truthers in 2021 don't claim any longer that the twins fell at or even just nearly free fall acceleration. That word is reserved for the roofline of WTC7's north wall (which Truthers invalidly equate with "the building", of course).

Would you preclude that the roofline would fall at fully free fall?

Truthers are correct that free fall acceleration was observed.
Click to expand...

I don't/haven't precluded anything.

Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.

So get off my case, please.
 
bknight said:
I don't/haven't precluded anything.

Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.

So get off my case, please.
Click to expand...

Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.
 
Oystein said:
Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom