9/11 The official story.

[D_N Flay Table]

Damn. I should of made this a poll.

 

[Horaven]

NIST has not released the numbers or data for their collapse progression model (although Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth requested it, then waited two months to be told they would have to pay $800 for it, payed the $800, and as of now, about 6 months later, no word back from the NIST)

Furthermore, a high school physics teacher, David Chandler showed how the draft before the final document had a glaring problem, when they calculated average velocity instead of temporal acceleration, to claim there was no free fall speed during the collapse. They were forced to make a change, after being embarrassed for making an 8th grade "mistake", and in the end, they just say, "2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration fits their model of collapse progression"

Yeah? How?

But you fail to mention that both have the same outcome. Chandler and NISTs calculations both come out to "near free fall speed".

NIST did talk about free fall speed during a specific time during the collapse because a lot of the internal structure of WTC7 was already gone. This "free fall" happened until internal structure was reached that was still intact and then the resistance slowed the collapse.

Did you read the report or are you copying and pasting from something?

 

[B_New End]

But you fail to mention that both have the same outcome. Chandler and NISTs calculations both come out to "near free fall speed".

No. Wrong. In their final draft before the official report, they had no such thing

NIST did talk about free fall speed during a specific time during the collapse because a lot of the internal structure of WTC7 was already gone.

Only after challenged by Chandler.

This "free fall" happened until internal structure was reached that was still intact and then the resistance slowed the collapse.

and?

Did you read the report or are you copying and pasting from something?

I've read large portions of the report. Have you? And trhis is all from the top of my head, everything is.

Tell you what, let's just wait until AE911 truth gets those model numbers. Until then, all we got is an NIST that made an obvious 8th grade blunder.

I'm really curious to see what kind of numbers they used in that collapse model. It's called peer review... let's have some.

 

[mitchymo]

But you fail to mention that both have the same outcome. Chandler and NISTs calculations both come out to "near free fall speed".

NIST did talk about free fall speed during a specific time during the collapse because a lot of the internal structure of WTC7 was already gone. This "free fall" happened until internal structure was reached that was still intact and then the resistance slowed the collapse.

Did you read the report or are you copying and pasting from something?

I don't understand how the internal support was gone at all. It was'nt hit like the towers and it suffered far less fire damage than any other high rise fire damaged building ever on record and none of which collapsed to the ground.

 

[Horaven]

No. Wrong. In their final draft before the official report, they had no such thing

Only after challenged by Chandler.


and?

I've read large portions of the report. Have you? And trhis is all from the top of my head, everything is.

Tell you what, let's just wait until AE911 truth gets those model numbers. Until then, all we got is an NIST that made an obvious 8th grade blunder.

I'm really curious to see what kind of numbers they used in that collapse model. It's called peer review... let's have some.

Didn't AE911 say they didn't get the model numbers for WTC1 and 2 only because they didn't fit their theory? And again, regardless of talking about "free fall or not" the fact still remains that Chandler and NIST came to the same calculations, it was "near free fall" which isn't free fall. Again Firefighters hours prior were saying that the building was going to collapse. Were they in on it too?

I don't understand how the internal support was gone at all. It was'nt hit like the towers and it suffered far less fire damage than any other high rise fire damaged building ever on record and none of which collapsed to the ground.

Are you actually submitting that WTC7 didn't suffer tremendous damage?

 

[B_New End]

Didn't AE911 say they didn't get the model numbers for WTC1 and 2 only because they didn't fit their theory?

No. I don't know where you got that information from.

I already explained. Ae911 truth asked for the numbers, got railroaded for 2 months, were told they would need $800. They raised $800 and paid it to NIST. It is six months later, and NIST has not said a word, and is not replying to requests from AE911 truth for an update on the status of the numbers.

And again, regardless of talking about "free fall or not" the fact still remains that Chandler and NIST came to the same calculations, it was "near free fall" which isn't free fall.

Actually, it was close enough to free fall to be considered free fall acceleration. Obviously you have not read that part of the NIST report (or any of it, I would bet). And again, only after Chandler called them out on it.

Again Firefighters hours prior were saying that the building was going to collapse. Were they in on it too?

Why would they have to "be in on it" to believe what they were told?

 

[mitchymo]

Are you actually submitting that WTC7 didn't suffer tremendous damage?

I did'nt say it did'nt suffer severe damage, but i doubt very much that the damage left most of the exterior untouched yet somehow weakened the internal support. There are actual skyscrapers hit by planes and burned for up to three times longer than the towers, which suffered extensive damage and never collapsed. With the exception of one which burned upwards and then collapsed in on itself but not past the starting point of the fire, i.e. it did'nt collapse fully.

If these buildings have survived direct hit plane crashes and severe fires...

If the conspiracy theory is false, and there is every chance it is (but i doubt right now) then the theory exists because of the stupid handling of the collapse. They should have just said, "yeah, we brought it down over safety concerns" from the off instead of leaving all these unanswered questions.

 

[Horaven]

No. I don't know where you got that information from.

I already explained. Ae911 truth asked for the numbers, got railroaded for 2 months, were told they would need $800. They raised $800 and paid it to NIST. It is six months later, and NIST has not said a word, and is not replying to requests from AE911 truth for an update on the status of the numbers.

Actually, it was close enough to free fall to be considered free fall acceleration. Obviously you have not read that part of the NIST report (or any of it, I would bet). And again, only after Chandler called them out on it.


Why would they have to "be in on it" to believe what they were told?

"Actually, it was close enough to free fall to be considered free fall acceleration." - Close enough? I'll just let that one stand on it's own.

So you're saying that firefighters were told this, none of them reported the damage themselves or witnessed the lean in the building 2 hours prior to the collapse, or saw a hole about a third of the way up WTC7.

 

[TomCat84]

In a word, no.



I think the average man on the street will never know the full truth, and I include myself in that group...but my intuition tells me it was likely an inside job.

You're hardly just average :tongue:

 

[Horaven]

I did'nt say it did'nt suffer severe damage, but i doubt very much that the damage left most of the exterior untouched yet somehow weakened the internal support. There are actual skyscrapers hit by planes and burned for up to three times longer than the towers, which suffered extensive damage and never collapsed. With the exception of one which burned upwards and then collapsed in on itself but not past the starting point of the fire, i.e. it did'nt collapse fully.

If these buildings have survived direct hit plane crashes and severe fires...

If the conspiracy theory is false, and there is every chance it is (but i doubt right now) then the theory exists because of the stupid handling of the collapse. They should have just said, "yeah, we brought it down over safety concerns" from the off instead of leaving all these unanswered questions.

There was a hole going up the building covering 1/3 of the outside surface. Where are you getting that there wasn't a lot of outside damage?

List examples of these buildings please, are you talking about the one in Madrid?

How could they have brought it down for safety reasons? Every demo team in the world has said it would take weeks/months to rig a building of that size. And also, wtc7 did not come down in it's own footprint.

 

[B_New End]

"Actually, it was close enough to free fall to be considered free fall acceleration." - Close enough? I'll just let that one stand on it's own.

Nothing falls at free fall unless it is in a vacuum.

So you're saying that firefighters were told this, none of them reported the damage themselves or witnessed the lean in the building 2 hours prior to the collapse, or saw a hole about a third of the way up WTC7.

Firefighters don't have the expertise to know if a steel structure like that is going to collapse or not. It was an unprecedented event.

There is also footage of fire fighters saying "they are going to blow it up.", adn one particualr clip that has a firefighter with the last few seconds of a countdown right before it collapsed.

 

[B_New End]

There was a hole going up the building covering 1/3 of the outside surface.

Not true. New pictures show that isn't the case:

http://www.bcskeptic.com/wtc/pages/image/imagepage1.html

and 1/3 of the surface was never the estimate, even before the new pictures released showed wtc7 wasn't "scooped" out as previously thought.

Seriously, where are you getting your information from?

And also, wtc7 did not come down in it's own footprint.

close enough.

 

[Industrialsize]

IMO "9/11 Truthers" and "Birthers" are just different sides of the same conspiracy theory coin.

 

[Horaven]

Nothing falls at free fall unless it is in a vacuum.

Firefighters don't have the expertise to know if a steel structure like that is going to collapse or not. It was an unprecedented event.

There is also footage of fire fighters saying "they are going to blow it up.", adn one particualr clip that has a firefighter with the last few seconds of a countdown right before it collapsed.

So why did the penthouse collapse first and then the rest of the building. Was this another top down CD that all demo companies say you cannot do?


You're right I'm sure most do not have engineering degrees. But many talked about the 20 story hole in WTC7 and how the building was leaning. May not be structural engineers but I think their experience does count for something.

I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see

we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

Link? Source? For this countdown. Please tell me you're not talking about the first responder that said he heard the count down over the Red Cross mic.

 

[Horaven]

Not true. New pictures show that isn't the case:

http://www.bcskeptic.com/wtc/pages/image/imagepage1.html

and 1/3 of the surface was never the estimate, even before the new pictures released showed wtc7 wasn't "scooped" out as previously thought.

Seriously, where are you getting your information from?


close enough.

I never said scooped out, there was severe damage going up 20 stories. Witnesses before the collapse confirmed this.

And no, not close enough.

 

[mitchymo]

List examples of these buildings please, are you talking about the one in Madrid?

No, that building had a frame which was steel reinforced concrete. It was'nt comparable to the WTC which was just steel.

These below are steel framed and suffered severe fires/infernos:-

The One Meridian Plaza - Philadelphia
The First Interstate Bank - Los Angeles
The 1 New York Plaza
The Caracas Tower - Venezuela
The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - China
The Garley Building - Bangkok
Indonesian Central Bank Complex - Jakarta
The Pirelli Skyscraper - Milan (this fire started because a small plane hit it)

All these had severe fires/infernos which gutted 1-7+ floors completely.

None collapsed to the ground because of fire. There are many more examples and so far the only comparable collapses that have been cited as proof of the official story have all been discreditted in one way or another.
Those that have'nt were collapses due to quakes or controlled dem.

 

[B_New End]

I never said scooped out, there was severe damage going up 20 stories. Witnesses before the collapse confirmed this.

And no, not close enough.

Your facts are completely screwy. Here let me help you out. If you wanna play this game right, go here:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - JREF Forum

Get all excited about how you knew your belief that "our government" would never do such a thing was right, and come back here and parrot everything they say there. Because as annoying as they are, at least they have most of their facts straight.

So why did the penthouse collapse first and then the rest of the building. Was this another top down CD that all demo companies say you cannot do?

What does that have to do with what I said? I don't feel like jumping all over the place on topics with you.

Link? Source? For this countdown. Please tell me you're not talking about the first responder that said he heard the count down over the Red Cross mic.

that's probably the one. the one that the JREFers have tried their damdest to debunk.

Anyways, you have a lot of debunker zeal and the typical debunker patronizing tone. In fact, I think right now you are searching sights for more debunking ammo. It's obvious you are new to this, but I am not, and frankly, it bores me arguing with people like you. So, you're the big winner. Have a cookie.

 

[Horaven]

IMO "9/11 Truthers" and "Birthers" are just different sides of the same conspiracy theory coin.

Amen.

 

[Horaven]

Your facts are completely screwy. Here let me help you out. If you wanna play this game right, go here:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - JREF Forum

Get all excited about how you knew your belief that "our government" would never do such a thing was right, and come back here and parrot everything they say there. Because as annoying as they are, at least they have most of their facts straight.



What does that have to do with what I said? I don't feel like jumping all over the place on topics with you.

This has nothing to do with what I believe a government can or can't do. This has to do with some form of proof, not speculation. The 9/11 movement in 9 years still has not provided one piece of credible evidence. This has nothing to do with wanting to believe the official story.

So again, firefighters talking about the building leaning, damage up 20 stories doesn't count and/or they were lying or seeing things?

 

[B_New End]

This has nothing to do with what I believe a government can or can't do. This has to do with some form of proof, not speculation. The 9/11 movement in 9 years still has not provided one piece of credible evidence. This has nothing to do with wanting to believe the official story.

So again, firefighters talking about the building leaning, damage up 20 stories doesn't count and/or they were lying or seeing things?

Like I said, at least get your facts straight first. I linked you to a great site for debunkers. You'll love it and feel right at home.