NIST Finally admits WCT 7 Fell at Freefall.

NIST, the agency in charge if investigating the 9/11 incident is not doing a good job of hiding the truth. There's a lot of controversy of course.. I mean it's the 9/11 topic. I was just checking things out and I came across this small video series. This Physics teacher David Chandler has made some excellent points, you can check his other videos. He explains the physics of the WTC destruction and so on. Enjoy.

www.youtube.com... (Number I)

www.youtube.com... (Number II)

www.youtube.com... (Number III)

reply to post by Astraios


dont you love how they say this was a rare event. But yet it happened 3 times in one day. such bull. as much as i love to discuss this topic, sadly most wont see the truth and this thread will become a stew of arguments.One of the most heated issues still today. Its been to long now and believers will always believe and debunkers will stick to there guns. wont sway anyone to either side. its very sad.

I have a feeling there will be a '911 disclosure' much like the foreseen 'ufo disclosure'

reply to post by jessejamesxx


What is the Over/Under on the amount of years for each?

Which one comes first?

reply to post by Dance4Life


Haha. It would probably all happen around the same time. But UFOs would have to come first. They would put the Internet shut off switch in place, along with space weapons, and any other restrictions on our freedoms & communications, so the revolt can be contained

If it did happen, it would probably all be intertwined, so the NWO could overthrow the existing government.. and how easy would it be if the general public knew about 911?

p.s. This is all hypothetical upon the small chance that all of these things exist & are in place

Let's see, the report came out in 2008.

Which means its been out for two years. Which means, that the truthers have had two years to get something going and to start the proceedings to give their case of alleged "inside job".

Oh by the way, NIST did mention that for about two seconds there was freefall. TWO SECONDS. The building itself of collapsing for 18 seconds. So two out of 18? Must have something to do with the design of the building than magical explosives.

Listen, if it was just one building that fell, we wouldnt be discussing this right now. But the fact that 3 buildings fell is so highly suspect, You cant deny Something else Made them fall. There have been plenty of buildings hit by planes and burned for many hours gutting all the floors that burned. Not one of them fell.

So can anyone really sit there and say, I believe in our government so much, I have to disregard facts and go with what they say. I for one cant do that. It was an act of war against the people of the united states. Greed and power taken way to far. And i for one will never forget it.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Let's see, the report came out in 2008.

Which means its been out for two years. Which means, that the truthers have had two years to get something going and to start the proceedings to give their case of alleged "inside job".

Oh by the way, NIST did mention that for about two seconds there was freefall. TWO SECONDS. The building itself of collapsing for 18 seconds. So two out of 18? Must have something to do with the design of the building than magical explosives.

Even if it was only 2 out of 18 seconds, which you have not proven might I add. Can you explain any of the other indications of a controlled demolition? Regardless of the 2 second freefall.

Originally posted by AstraiosEven if it was only 2 out of 18 seconds, which you have not proven might I add. Can you explain any of the other indications of a controlled demolition? Regardless of the 2 second freefall.

Which might that be?

The loud explosions? Oh wait, there weren't any.

The building being riddled with holes and having explosives cords strung throughout? Oh wait, didn't happen.

"Because it looked like one" isn't an argument. Especially not considering the circumstances surrounding the collapse.

Originally posted by Astraios
Even if it was only 2 out of 18 seconds, which you have not proven might I add. Can you explain any of the other indications of a controlled demolition? Regardless of the 2 second freefall.

Probably, start a thread describing what you think the indications are, how they apply to WTC7, and the evidence you have for it.

Many of us would be happy to explain our understanding of the situation to you, and see if there's anything you believe that isn't supported by the evidence.

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by AstraiosEven if it was only 2 out of 18 seconds, which you have not proven might I add. Can you explain any of the other indications of a controlled demolition? Regardless of the 2 second freefall.

Which might that be?

The loud explosions? Oh wait, there weren't any.

The building being riddled with holes and having explosives cords strung throughout? Oh wait, didn't happen.

"Because it looked like one" isn't an argument. Especially not considering the circumstances surrounding the collapse.

No, It would mean the high energy pyrotechnic substance used to paint some of the structure, a manmade substance that should not have been there. Molten metal, which jet fuel does not have the ability to burn hot enough to melt metal, there are various indications.

Originally posted by Astraios

No, It would mean the high energy pyrotechnic substance used to paint some of the structure, a manmade substance that should not have been there. Molten metal, which jet fuel does not have the ability to burn hot enough to melt metal, there are various indications.

You are right, it shouldn't have been there, which is why there isn't even a microbe of evidence there was any "pyrotechnic substance used to paint some of the structure", since a) the closest you have is Jone's "thermitic substance" report which never said anythign about explosive paint, so you're making up this bit off the top of your head, and b) it would take a hell of a lot more explosives to destroy that battleship armor they made the support columns out of than a thin layer of paint, regardless of whatever super duper gazooper explosives you conjure up.

As my colleage stated, all the information you need to form a fair and balanced opinion has already been released years ago. It's just that those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to are deliberately trying to get yo all paranoid over shadows, and they're not telling you what it is. Dylan Avery and Alex Jones never told you that fire fighters reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the building, did they?

Don't let the "boys" kid you. The collapse was 6.5 seconds.

www.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Stewie
Don't let the "boys" kid you. The collapse was 6.5 seconds.

...and in typical conspiracy theorist form, all these clips deliberately snip off the video where the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building some seven seconds before the towers collapsed. making the full total collapse time around fourteen seconds.

Here's the full video. Why are the conspiracy people so deathly afraid of people seeing this?

Full video of the WTC 7 collapse

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Who is afraid of your video?

The building does not begin collapsing until the building BEGINS collapsing. Or, should we start the collapse when it was hit by falling debris, Dave?

Demolition. Clearly and you know it. Your video shows a building collapse in roughly seven seconds.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


and to Stewie too,

The clip from goodoldave clearly shows the building collapsing in roughly 6.5 - 7 seconds. Including the penthouse structure in the collapse time is clearly intellectually false. Its like Marge Simpson, ATS member goodoldave would have us believe she is 8 foot tall because you have to include the hair. Of course, goodoldave did not use that precise metaphor but it is apt. 6.5 seconds, clearly no structual support = inside job.

On the other hand, people like goodoldave (insert circular debunker name here) believes a single point lead to collapse but 'somehow' the penthouse collapsed first. 2+2=5 indeed. OS supports have lost the debate, now it is recognized they have lost its time to move on.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Who is afraid of your video?

The building does not begin collapsing until the building BEGINS collapsing. Or, should we start the collapse when it was hit by falling debris, Dave?

Demolition. Clearly and you know it. Your video shows a building collapse in roughly seven seconds.

Your objections don't make even a thimble full of logical sense. It is not for debate that the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building some seven seconds before the entire structure collapsed. Saying it "collapsed in seven seconds" is deliberately concealing the fact that the structure had already partially collapsed by that time as well as deliberately concealing the fact that there was almost certain additional severe damage to the structure due to the penthouse collapse itself. Your "suspiciously rapid collapse" becomes way less suspicious once it's revealed It wasn't an intact building that had collapsed, but a building that was already starting to fall down. Combined with the fact that no demolition job on the planet has ever destroyed a structure in such a strange manner, it's little wonder why you conceal such information from others.

Even with your deliberate editing of the video footage, firefighters reported the fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 which were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the building, showing that the fires were doing ugly things to the building right there. If you disagree that it was the fires that instigated the collapse, that's your right, but at the end of the day it still wasn't demolitions that brought it down regardless of how much you want the idea to be true.

reply to post by GoodOlDave




I edited videos and withheld evidence and what else?

Rich.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Astraios

No, It would mean the high energy pyrotechnic substance used to paint some of the structure, a manmade substance that should not have been there. Molten metal, which jet fuel does not have the ability to burn hot enough to melt metal, there are various indications.

You are right, it shouldn't have been there, which is why there isn't even a microbe of evidence there was any "pyrotechnic substance used to paint some of the structure", since a) the closest you have is Jone's "thermitic substance" report which never said anythign about explosive paint, so you're making up this bit off the top of your head, and b) it would take a hell of a lot more explosives to destroy that battleship armor they made the support columns out of than a thin layer of paint, regardless of whatever super duper gazooper explosives you conjure up.

As my colleage stated, all the information you need to form a fair and balanced opinion has already been released years ago. It's just that those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to are deliberately trying to get yo all paranoid over shadows, and they're not telling you what it is. Dylan Avery and Alex Jones never told you that fire fighters reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing a three story tall bulge in the side of the building, did they?

Ok actually, (For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.) ((See the below image))

www2.ae911truth.org...

Found on
www.ae911truth.org...

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I edited videos and withheld evidence and what else?

Rich.

Well, technically, you aren't the one manipulating the evidence. It's the con artists running those damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting this drivel from. You can see right away that the video they're using is the NIST footage, and the penthouse collapse portion didn't just evaporate on its own.