NIST admits freefall speed

Evangelion said:
The WTC was built in the 1970s, for crying out loud! :rolleyes:

What kind of lunatic believes that even while it was being built, the government planned to destroy it with a series of controlled explosions 30 years later? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever; it's completely mad.

Good grief man, just listen to yourself!
Click to expand...

jsut to highlight a few words - COULD have been installed at ANY TIME from its construction
 
AcidHell2 said:
but it's not built to withstand a plane and then fires.

what do fireman know? and have these so called emo people looked at the blue prints and structural diagrams.

it looks odd as it hasn't happened before. but it's also a diffrent building design than anything else. Go read about it's structure then you might start talking some sense rather than just saying I cant belive, even though you have no clue and can't explain why they should have fell any differently to what happened.
Click to expand...

Ok, so i have no clue, that by default means that every single person on the face of this earth that has put their hand up and said "hold on, somethings not right here" is an idiot that knows nothing?
 
Lunatyc said:
Ok, so i have no clue, that by default means that every single person on the face of this earth that has put their hand up and said "hold on, somethings not right here" is an idiot that knows nothing?
Click to expand...

only if they keep ignoring posts people made and keep ignoring the explanations on why the towers fell the way they did.

If you would like to explain why the towers should have fell in another way, or provide evidence or theorys on why they should have fell in a different way then by my guest and I will have a look. But not even the conspiracy sites have done that.
 
Housey said:
In the same way....

"ARE YOU ON GLUE"
Click to expand...

hahah, yes i know, i sound like a nutter, and hey i probably am.

it just infuriates me that people are so closed minded, i know the likelyhood is that happened jsut as the documents say, but there is the possible chance that it was all pre-determined and planned and i think to ignore that as a possibility, in even the slightest of ways, is a very dangerous thing to do.
 
Lunatyc said:
hahah, yes i know, i sound like a nutter, and hey i probably am.

it just infuriates me that people are so closed minded, i know the likelyhood is that happened jsut as the documents say, but there is the possible chance that it was all pre-determined and planned and i think to ignore that as a possibility, in even the slightest of ways, is a very dangerous thing to do.
Click to expand...

Body of evidence, to me, and most others supports what we all watched on our TV's and though some of the facts of the day will have been blotted the basis of what happend is pretty clear to me. There comes a time to make a call and just because some people choose to think there was no goverment involvement, no bombs, no aliens should not be seen as dangerous, perhaps more pragmatic and realistic. I worked for a company who had an office in Tower 2 at the time, rest assured no one ever mention big TNT boxes or FBI people hanging around but then 2 of them died so perhaps they knew too much...
 
Im saying its dangerous in the sense that the individual should never stop thinking for themselves and never follow suit just because it is the easiest option to take / beleive.
 
Lunatyc said:
hahah, yes i know, i sound like a nutter, and hey i probably am.

it just infuriates me that people are so closed minded, i know the likelyhood is that happened jsut as the documents say, but there is the possible chance that it was all pre-determined and planned and i think to ignore that as a possibility, in even the slightest of ways, is a very dangerous thing to do.
Click to expand...

Yeah its strange... as I've always said through out the thread the most straight foward explanation in the most logical but it doesn't rule out the possibility of other explanations, yet people jump on you as if you absolutely have to be a CT if you don't absolutely, blindly support the most logical explanation as fact.

It gets worse when they demonstrate an ignorance of explosives and demolition outside of that extensively documented and researched by the official reports, which they have obviously digested in detail and swallowed word for word.
 
Lunatyc said:
Im saying its dangerous in the sense that the individual should never stop thinking for themselves and never follow suit just because it is the easiest option to take / beleive.
Click to expand...

I sense you are missing the irony of this statement?

You can fool some of the people etc etc etc
 
AcidHell2 said:
which video none of them model the collapse?
Click to expand...



You hit the nail on the head
that page is Nist and the 2 models on the right is what they used
for there report did you see it fall to the ground or free fall?

NOPE nore me either.

I dont know if you knew there was 3 reports
which says "Owner's Insurance Claim Investigation Blames Columns"
Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti were also involved in the Weidlinger study,
which says "Owner's Insurance Claim Investigation Blames Columns"
As we know he got paid out by the insurance company big time.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from
Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7.

Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So:
This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

REPORT Num 2
It thus stands in stark contrast to the FEMA Report,
whose pancake theory blames floor truss failures
Why would the same individuals endorse two contradictory
theories in their different roles?

So to cap this off we have this
Experts" Towering Inferno Steel melted

FEMA
Floor failure: "A pancake-type collapse of successive floors

NIST
External column failure from sagging floors and softened core columns, etc ...
leading to pile driver collapse

(TNRAT - They'll Never Read All This theory)

So which one is right? the guy who won the insurance? maybe
FEMA(GOV) who say they got it right? could be

last but not least

Nist
External column failure from sagging floors and softened core columns, etc ...
leading to pile driver collapse.

So you still backing Nist Acid?
maybe this is why people dont belive one or the other?
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Yeah its strange... as I've always said through out the thread the most straight foward explanation in the most logical but it doesn't rule out the possibility of other explanations, yet people jump on you as if you absolutely have to be a CT if you don't absolutely, blindly support the most logical explanation as fact.
Click to expand...
But unless you have some sort of evidence then there really isn't a lot of point. As I keep saying the theorys CT put forward can be disproved or made so unlikely you there's no point.


Rroff said:
It gets worse when they demonstrate an ignorance of explosives and demolition outside of that extensively documented and researched by the official reports, which they have obviously digested in detail and swallowed word for word.
Click to expand...

Rofl
 
deuse said:
You hit the nail on the head
that page is Nist and the 2 models on the right is what they used
for there report did you see it fall to the ground or ant free fall?
?
Click to expand...

None of them collapsed to the floor, so why would I see free fall. All of those videos only go to the tipping point.
 
AcidHell2 said:
But unless you have some sort of evidence then there really isn't a lot of point. As I keep saying the theorys CT put forward can be disproved or made so unlikely you there's no point.




Rofl
Click to expand...

Acid, unless you can conclusivley 100% disprove the use of explosives in the wtc collapse, i think laughing at someone elses opinion is not very good practise
 
deuse said:
FEMA
Floor failure: "A pancake-type collapse of successive floors

NIST
External column failure from sagging floors and softened core columns, etc ...
leading to pile driver collapse


Nist
External column failure from sagging floors and softened core columns, etc ...
leading to pile driver collapse.
Click to expand...
They are essentially the same, which reports are you using, are you using a mix of initial and final reports? are you using reports spanning all three towers or the same ones?
 
Rroff said:
Yeah its strange... as I've always said through out the thread the most straight foward explanation in the most logical but it doesn't rule out the possibility of other explanations, yet people jump on you as if you absolutely have to be a CT if you don't absolutely, blindly support the most logical explanation as fact.

It gets worse when they demonstrate an ignorance of explosives and demolition outside of that extensively documented and researched by the official reports, which they have obviously digested in detail and swallowed word for word.
Click to expand...

So then, your credible competence on this event is greater than others who disagree with you why exactly, not sure I got that?
 
Lunatyc said:
Acid, unless you can conclusivley 100% disprove the use of explosives in the wtc collapse, i think laughing at someone elses opinion is not very good practise
Click to expand...

I think I was laughing at this point and stand by it, it's frigging hilarious especially as I know it's aimed at me

"ignorance of explosives and demolition outside of that extensively documented and researched by the official reports, which they have obviously digested in detail and swallowed word for word."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom