Yep, NIST were certainly doing that!
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
Yep, NIST were certainly doing that!
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,116
My questions on the 9/11 attacks have always been the same but I don’t share too often because I don’t give much for the conspiracy theories. However the following summarises my feelings on the matter as it relates to this thread
1) A fair amount of effort went into plotting the attacks by Al-Qaida with probably a limited success margin / high risk.
2) Given the ongoing debate of whether the aircraft could in fact cause the collapse of the building……..who / which part of Al-Qaida sat down as part of the planning and decided that given all the variables and risks, the attacks could most likely destroy the buildings?
3) Did they have anyone capable of calculating this and factoring in the variables to ensure the planes struck in exactly the right spot etc?
4) If they were not trying to destroy the buildings and just kill a couple of thousand people and it was for visual show, again it seems a lot of effort / risk given the potential outcome being ongoing war against their people & home lands and an upping of security in the country to level which would make future movements very difficult not only in the US but across the world. Al-Qaida not being stupid and being well connected must have realised this.
1) A fair amount of effort went into plotting the attacks by Al-Qaida with probably a limited success margin / high risk.
2) Given the ongoing debate of whether the aircraft could in fact cause the collapse of the building……..who / which part of Al-Qaida sat down as part of the planning and decided that given all the variables and risks, the attacks could most likely destroy the buildings?
3) Did they have anyone capable of calculating this and factoring in the variables to ensure the planes struck in exactly the right spot etc?
4) If they were not trying to destroy the buildings and just kill a couple of thousand people and it was for visual show, again it seems a lot of effort / risk given the potential outcome being ongoing war against their people & home lands and an upping of security in the country to level which would make future movements very difficult not only in the US but across the world. Al-Qaida not being stupid and being well connected must have realised this.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Incorrect. NIST have now actually admitted freefall.
Building 7 was not hit by a plane.
Blah blah blah. You know nothing, so why try to explain something you don't have a clue about. everything you say is a lie or is twisted. that is what CT is mostly about.
Read this, before you spout more rubbish
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
No it wasn't, it was hit by the wtc and was missing an entire corner of the structure, as long as other massive damage. Ontop of that it was on fire.
Look at the videos it does not free fall.
" 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states,
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
"
A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation”
proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to
fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics. "
So even NIST dont know
Here is the letter to the victims family http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Going by what you're saying though, terrorist attacks wouldn't be an issue. But the fact that they are such a high level threat surely indicates what you're saying isn't true. This is what makes terrorists so dangerous, you never truly know what they are up to, the kind of resources they have access too and when they will strike next.
Free fall is easy to work out. all you need is the time it takes the building to collapse. Nearly everything about he wtc collapse has been shown and replicated in simulators.
Yes they are theories. because unless you want to build another wtc and fly another plane into it. Then the theories can not be proven. That's what science is. But as I said they do check out with physic principles and they do match with computer simulations.
So now your saying NIST is wrong?
" NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
thats NIST not me and I did not know you was a physics buff cudos to you
Which fits with what I have said. They might not of explained everything 100%. But they know more than enough on what happened and how it happened.
True and it also fits mine that it free falled!
so it comes down to what do you want to belive and who you back
I am very open minded about all things and untill its proven 100%+
I will keep a open mind.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
So you rubbish conspiracies without actually looking at the evidence?!!!!!!
I'm not normally one to poke fun, but that is rather funny
So you rubbish conspiracies without actually looking at the evidence?!!!!!!
I'm not normally one to poke fun, but that is rather funny
No here's the evidence. oh look ct conspiracy people ignoring the very same report they use as evidence, shock horror.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
I quoted the report as a source. What exactly have I ignored?
the part of the report, that doesn't fit your argument.
so what is it 47? stories and only 8 floors are at free fall speed. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
That's a completely different matter. The whole thread is about NIST's admission that freefall speed took place. As I said in the OP, you can draw your own conclusions as to its significance.