NIST admits freefall speed

How about you read back through this thread, or the other big thread. Or if you post some evidence for a CT then I'll post what you ask for, as I'm pretty fed up of posting reports, quotes and links, which you jsut totally ignore. when all I get back is mindless dribble with no supporting evidence.


Oi every report or anything you asked me for I GOT
the first time I ask you ,...you cry and moan

You say to me "I have no supporting evidence?"

but I just quoted from the 3 USA gov boys..the ones you back
so now you are calling them " mindless dribble with no supporting evidence"
 
Oi every report or anything you asked me for I GOT
the first time I ask you ,...you cry and moan

You say to me "I have no supporting evidence?"

but I just quoted from the 3 USA gov boys..the ones you back
so now you are calling them " mindless dribble with no supporting evidence"

No two say failing floors pulled in supporting columns and pile drived down. The other says collapsing floors cause a pancake action. they are the same.

when have you got me any evidence? even those quotes don't come with links or which report you got them for.

and as for it being demolished for an insurance pay out
 
Last edited:
Again: this is not a list of criteria. You haven't told me what will satisfy your requirements. Under what conditions could I possibly meet the demand? What would it take to prove that controlled demolitions were not used in the WTC collapse?



You're missing the point. The point is that you're asking me to prove a negative, and you haven't told me what evidence will satisfy you. I am asking you what it would take to prove the point. What sort of evidence or proof are you looking for? What do I have to produce?

I am not asking you to write in a different way; I am simply asking you to be specific.

Also: can you prove that aliens weren't involved in the WTC collapse? Can you prove that the Russians weren't involved? Can you prove that the Chinese weren't involved? Can you prove that the Australians weren't involved?

Can you?

my criteria where not specific, as i know there is no way you could possibly prove anything, it was simply to prove a point.

i wont however keep this pathetic argument up with you as your taking this to a silly childish level.

i do however beleive that if aliens where involved with the WTC, it would be indirectly, in the sense that technology recouvered from crashed alien ships could have been reverse engineered by the US to make top secret aircraft capable of taking the WTC down and making it look like 767's had crashed there.

good enough? :cool:
 
Can you tell us what conditions are required in order for your request to be fulfilled? What would it take to "conclusively 100% disprove the use of explosives in the WTC collapse"? Give us a list of criteria to meet.

A proper independent investigation would have been nice, but as most of the evidence was destroyed only days after the event it's going to be pretty difficult to dig up anything new.

There was a woman called Beverly Eckert pushing for a new investigation into 9/11 (she refused ~$1.8m from the "Victims Fund" because she felt the government was incompetant that day and wanted to prosecute which she wouldn't have been able to do had she accepted the bribe... sorry fund) but unfortunately her push for a new investigation most likely died along with her in the equally suspicious Buffalo plane crash in Feb '09.

Even Japanese ministers have questioned the "official story" of what happened on 9/11 or who was behind it:

I don't actually think we'll ever know for sure what the real story was, a bit like the JFK assassination.
 
Last edited:
No two say failing floors pulled in supporting columns and pile drived down. The other says collapsing floors cause a pancake action. they are the same.

when have you got me any evidence? even those quotes don't come with links or which report you got them for.

and as for it being demolished for an insurance pay out


I did say but I will say One more time for you.
I already shown you the nist site..the one is one there ok

amd i going to fast? nope ok then

the second one is FEMA http://www.fema.gov/ you can look it up there

I will find the other one but dont wait for me just go right ahead and read the others.

and by the way..one was floor truss failures
the other was Core failer and I going to be a good sport and let you find the other failer

I dont think you ever read a single report hmmmmm
 
I dont think you ever read a single report hmmmmm

No of course not, despite my hundreds if not thousands of posts, quoting and linking them over about 10 thread

and how exactly am I meant to find a report that you have quoted two lines from and no other information?
 
Last edited:
A proper independent investigation would have been nice, but as most of the evidence was destroyed only days after the event it's going to be pretty difficult to dig up anything new.

There was a woman called Beverly Eckert pushing for a new investigation into 9/11 (she refused ~$1.8m from the "Victims Fund" because she felt the government was incompetant that day and wanted to prosecute which she wouldn't have been able to do had she accepted the bribe... sorry fund) but unfortunately her push for a new investigation

Government compensation is not a "bribe".

Eckert didn't push for a new investigation; she pushed for the original investigation, which became known as the 9/11 Commission. Not only that, but she was also one of the people pushing for increased national security. You've got Beverly Eckert to thank for the Homeland Security Act! Yep, all those extra restrictive laws and rules introduced by the government... well, that's what Beverly wanted, and that's what she got. :D

most likely died along with her in the equally suspicious Buffalo plane crash in Feb '09.

There was nothing suspicious about the Buffalo plane crash. The plane crash-landed in bad weather whilst flying under poor conditions:


In the minutes before the crash, while on approach to the Buffalo airport, the pilots reported snow and haze conditions, and ice on the windshield and leading edge of the wings, according to a National Transportation Safety Board review of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.

The pilot then activated de-icing equipment, and seconds before the crash attempted to raise the landing gear and flaps, as if to abort the landing.

Source.

Even Japanese ministers have questioned the "official story" of what happened on 9/11 or who was behind it:

This does not pass the "So what?" test.

I don't actually think we'll ever know for sure what the real story was, a bit like the JFK assassination.

Yes we do. Two planes crashed into the buildings, which then broke, burned, and fell apart. The event was witnessed by millions of people at the time, and recorded by cameras, microphones, videos, etc.

That's what happened.
 
So your saying that if there is any conspiracy here at all the military would have no involvment?

Also, the government that contols the US military is still teh same that controls civilian, therefore imho, jsut as good at keeping secrets
 
So your saying that if there is any conspiracy here at all the military would have no involvment?

Also, the government that contols the US military is still teh same that controls civilian, therefore imho, jsut as good at keeping secrets

No i'm sayign companies and public dont get to look around a military site for 30 years.


Anyway good mythbusters. 1000lbs of thermite and it didn't even cut through a car, with mavity on it's side. As you can see it turns to liquid and flows with mavity.
 
development started in the 70's so tahts 18 odd years, granted bad example but my point was that secrets can be kept.

Wait a second. One minute it's "secrets can be kept for 30 years"; the next minute it's "hey look guys, we've just uncovered the secret government plot to blow up 3,000 Americans as a prelude to a war on Afghanistan and Iraq!" :rolleyes:

If the plot was so easy to expose, why wasn't it exposed earlier - before it happened?
 
I dont know, i have no answers to any of these questions your asking, and you know i dont.

your giving me a load of this because you wont accept anything other than the official reports.

im arguing with you and throwing whatever i can back because i dont believe the reports.

i have no proof of anything, and no answers to any scientific questions.

jsut what i beleive did, or did not happen.

there it is, in black and white, either accept my opinion or dont but sitting there patronising me or anyone else isnt going to further the debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom