revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I have asked you many, many times to explain how the debris from the top of the towers hit the ground well before the buildings finished collapsing even though they fell, according to you, at free-fall speed.

It is 'Natural' for a building to 'not' fall at freefall speed, and for periods of time they did not do so, but for other periods of time they did. It is quite easy to answer your quesstion as the buildng stood for decades due to thier design. thery are quite simply too strong for gravity alone to take them down at that speed, or at all.
Why don't you tell us which parts of the collapse were at free-fall speed, which were not, and why you believe this happened.
What is difficult to explain is how they can manage to accelerate at freefall speed due to random fires and structural weakness. It is not difficult at all to understand. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean nobody else does. It has all been explained to ou before...more than once.

Quote

As far as building 7, it is entirely possible due to a combination of the nature of the collapse and physics for a small area to not just fall but to be pulled down and briefly accelerate faster than 1 G. It can happen briefly but it cannot be sustained for any substantial length of time. To help you understand how this can be, think of a lever with a heavy weight on a short arm leveraging a smaller weight on a longer arm.
I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but it is a possibility and not the only one.

digging deep for that one bro, how about you explain it and use a building as an example, and answer my question;
Uh, no, not digging. That scenario happens almost every time a building collapses either intentionally or accidently. Some parts accelerate at less than 1 g, some parts at 1 g, others at more than 1 g. Again, jusdt because you don't understand the physics doesn't mean nobody else does.

Do you think it is an anomoly that the freefall occurred for at least 2.5 seconds, and if not where has the precedent been set for this before.

No, and there is no precedent since no other building of that size had been damaged by fires and two skyscrapers falling on it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[millertimeunc 0]

Quote

Quote

It was a lie. Cellphones do work in airplanes; if anyone had asked an expert they could have told them that.

They work until about 9k then they don't work anymore.


Wow, I really wish someone would have told me that before I called baseops mid-flight a few months ago to report a change in our flight plan...on my cell phone...from 22k feet...and had a conversation with them.

The best things in life are dangerous.

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It was a lie. Cellphones do work in airplanes; if anyone had asked an expert they could have told them that.

They work until about 9k then they don't work anymore.


Wow, I really wish someone would have told me that before I called baseops mid-flight a few months ago to report a change in our flight plan...on my cell phone...from 22k feet...and had a conversation with them.

Ooooooo
That is going to leave a mark........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rhys 0]

Quote

They work until about 9k then they don't work anymore.


Wow, I really wish someone would have told me that before I called baseops mid-flight a few months ago to report a change in our flight plan...on my cell phone...from 22k feet...and had a conversation with them.

I checked today and my phone and my friend’s 3g phone both cut out before 10k.

That is not to say i don't believe you made a call from 22k. But that is what I have observed.

The cell phone calls are only a small variable in the big picture, and technology had come a long way in the last decade.

I won't push that point because I am not so sure on it, I would be guessing If i tried to say what cell phones were capable of 10 years ago, but I do know that mine does not work at 12k and my workmates fancy 3g phone does not either. Full coverage at 8k none at 12, unreliable at 9-10

I can't use that as evidence as our networks will be different to the USA’s.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,575]

Quote

I won't push that point because I am not so sure on it, I would be guessing If i tried to say what cell phones were capable of 10 years ago, but I do know that mine does not work at 12k and my workmates fancy 3g phone does not either. Full coverage at 8k none at 12, unreliable at 9-10

I can't use that as evidence as our networks will be different to the USA’s.

But you have used it as evidence, many times, even though it's been pointed out to you many times that you were wrong, even though you were 'guessing'. You used it anyway, just because it supported your viewpoint.

What does that tell you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

Why don't you tell us which parts of the collapse were at free-fall speed, which were not, and why you believe this happened.

I believe this happened because of the pre planted explosives, you now the explosives that have been found in all the dust that has been analysed by independent investigators, and palmed off as being planted by the said investigators.

This could be clarified in a heartbeat if anyone but NIST and government officials were allowed to analyse the dust in the landfill.

Everyone has been refused access to the site and also the family members that have no carcass of their loved ones are also not allowed some of the dust in lieu of their family’s remains.

What is so secret about some rubbish in a landfill?

[jakee 1,575]

Quote

It is 'Natural' for a building to 'not' fall at freefall speed, and for periods of time they did not do so, but for other periods of time they did.

Rhys, for years now the reason you have put forward for the buildings collapsing at 'freefall speed' is simply the time you say it took for the top section to get from the top to the the bottom. An average time over the whole descent.

Now you say you know how fast the buildings fell at every point of the descent? Please, share that with us! When were they going at freefall speeds? When did they slow down? When did they speed up again?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

But you have used it as evidence, many times, even though it's been pointed out to you many times that you were wrong, even though you were 'guessing'. You used it anyway, just because it supported your viewpoint.

What does that tell you?

I have never used my observations of my cell phones ability to work at any altitude as evidence.

I have used David Ray Griffin's findings.

You can see them for yourself here;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

It is quite extensive but if you are seriously interested you will read it, I don't expect you to.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Rhys, for years now the reason you have put forward for the buildings collapsing at 'freefall speed' is simply the time you say it took for the top section to get from the top to the the bottom. An average time over the whole descent.

Now you say you know how fast the buildings fell at every point of the descent? Please, share that with us! When were they going at freefall speeds? When did they slow down? When did they speed up again?

I have been focused on buliding 7 for some time, all 3 buildings fell much faster than they should have, but the dynamics of building 7 is completely different to 1 & 2.

Here is the link again expalaining how the NIST report admits freefal yet cannot explain it.

Nobody that does not admit explosives were used can; because it is impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ

They use inadequate and unscientific methods to gain completely false data.
They guess statistics and use averages when complete data is easily obtainable.

This is drylabbing.

Buildings 1 & 2 are obscured by the dust of the pulverised concrete almost instantly after onset of collapse, not that there isn't plenty of evidence there.

Building 7 is more than what is needed to prove the coverup, that is why it is focused on by the truth movement.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Traces of explosives: Totally false and an outright lie. The only thing that was found even related to that was traces of compounds that are consistent with reacted thermite....compounds which are naturally occuring and can be found in the ashes of any burned structure, even a burned down outhouse.

Explanations: Simple explanations have been made for you here on this forum. You have chosen to ignore and discard them becaue they do not fit your wishes of what happened.

I do not know if it was just a small section or the enitre building that reached near free-fall rates as i do not have the data at my disposal and do not wish to waste the time trying to determine such data from Youtube videos, which would be woefully inaccurate at best. (But that hasn't stopped your buddies, has it? )

Yes, it is unprecedented but it is not unexplained.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,575]

Quote

I have been focused on buliding 7 for some time, all 3 buildings fell much faster than they should have, but the dynamics of building 7 is completely different to 1 & 2.

What? In case you've forgotten what you were replying to yesterday, here it is again;

Quote

Quote

I have asked you many, many times to explain how the debris from the top of the towers hit the ground well before the buildings finished collapsing even though they fell, according to you, at free-fall speed.

It is 'Natural' for a building to 'not' fall at freefall speed, and for periods of time they did not do so, but for other periods of time they did.

Belgian is obviously referring to the twin towers, not Building 7. Since you are also talking about buildings, plural, then you are talking about the twin towers as well.

If you now say that you are only talking about Building 7, then you have dodged Belgian's question. Why don't you answer it?

Quote

Buildings 1 & 2 are obscured by the dust of the pulverised concrete almost instantly after onset of collapse,

Then how come you have, for years, claimed that you know how long it took for them to fall, and that they were falling at freefall speed? Do you no longer claim this?

Quote

Building 7 is more than what is needed to prove the coverup, that is why it is focused on by the truth movement.

For what possible reason would the conspiracy have wanted to bring down WTC7? What possible benefit could they have gained from it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

....all 3 buildings fell much faster than they should have.....

No, they didn't. You have not the education, the knowledge, the experience, or the qualifications to make that claim or to judge whether someone making that claim is, in fact, telling the truth.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I do not know if it was just a small section or the enitre building that reached near free-fall rates as i do not have the data at my disposal and do not wish to waste the time trying to determine such data from Youtube videos, which would be woefully inaccurate at best. (But that hasn't stopped your buddies, has it? Wink)

Yes, it is unprecedented but it is not unexplained.

are you talking about NIST? they used the same video to create thier analysis, or are you talking about david chandler?

If you conclude that using video is woefully inaccurate, then you must agree with me (for different reasons) that the NIST's data is inaccurate and we need another investigation?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

The only video I would have to go by is posted on Youtube. It is by no means complete and could easily have been edited by whomever for whatever reason. I do not know the complete list of video NIST had at their disposal. Same with Chandler.
The only thing I said was that using the videos from Youtube would be inaccurate, not using all the raw footage that was taken that day by many different people from many different angles., including recently released footage taken from a helicopter that was not available to Chandler.
For these reasons, and the fact you have no clue as to what you are talking about, I don't have to agree with you.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

If you now say that you are only talking about Building 7, then you have dodged Belgian's question. Why don't you answer it?

my answer for that question is the same.

He simply wanted to move the conversation from tower 7 by asking an irelevant question. There was no debris falling from building 7 in the videos we have on offer.

He knows he has his foot in his mouth, and he is trying to use his credentials against mine as his argument rather than trying to explain, what he claims is easy to explain.

It is much harder to explan how a building can achieve freefall from a fire, than when it is hit by a jet liner.

This is probably why building 7 was ommited from mainstream post 911 news reports and the initial government reports.

It seem they wanted us to forget about it as if it was not significant?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,575]

Quote

He simply wanted to move the conversation from tower 7 by asking an irelevant question.

It is not irrelevant, unless you deny having argued that the Twin Towers fell at freefall speeds. Do you deny having argued this in the past?

Quote

It is much harder to explan how a building can achieve freefall from a fire, than when it is hit by a jet liner.

This is probably why building 7 was ommited from mainstream post 911 news reports

Or, maybe it's because the Twin Towers themselves were the much, much bigger story?

No, can't be that, can it. You're right, all of the news networks must have been in on the conspiracy!



Oh yeah, and why, again, did the conspiracy want to take down Building 7? The Twin Towers and the Pentagon weren't quite enough to justify PNAC's plan for world domination via Iraq, they needed Building 7 as well to tip the balance?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

The only video I would have to go by is posted on Youtube. It is by no means complete and could easily have been edited by whomever for whatever reason. I do not know the complete list of video NIST had at their disposal. Same with Chandler.
The only thing I said was that using the videos from Youtube would be inaccurate, not using all the raw footage that was taken that day by many different people from many different angles., including recently released footage taken from a helicopter that was not available to Chandler.
For these reasons, and the fact you have no clue as to what you are talking about, I don't have to agree with you.

So you are saying that it is not possible to compare the video to NIST's report and check for continuity?

Saying I don't have a clue about what I am talking about is not only unprofessional and arrogant. It is a personal attack.

A reaccuring personal attack and as much as I don't expect Bill to caution you on you blatant misconduct, he should do so in all fairness.

It would be akin to me saying someone that has much less jumps than me has no clue about skydiving.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Congressman Jason Chafetz just said that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11.



A nutjob, right?



Maybe.



But he joins quite a few other Congressmen:



According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House(confirmed here)



Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"



Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigationand states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"



Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11



Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11



Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation



Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg says that the U.S. government "assisted" in the 9/11 attacks, stating that "I think there was a lot of help from the inside"



Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job



And 9/11 Commissioners:



The Commission's co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)



9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue



9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"



9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"



9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."



And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - recently said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."



And senior intelligence officers:



A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)



Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recentlysaid that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.



A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.



A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and seethis).



20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (scroll down to Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).



A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that "the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job



The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."



Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.



And other government officials:



U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."



Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11



The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility



President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11



Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt"



The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission



Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated: "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"



If he's nuts, Congressman Chafetz is in good company. And see this and this

It is not far away now people, Rupert Murdoch won't tell ya, but there is more going on behind the scenes right now than most of you will be willing to acknowledge!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

The only video I would have to go by is posted on Youtube. It is by no means complete and could easily have been edited by whomever for whatever reason. I do not know the complete list of video NIST had at their disposal. Same with Chandler.
The only thing I said was that using the videos from Youtube would be inaccurate, not using all the raw footage that was taken that day by many different people from many different angles., including recently released footage taken from a helicopter that was not available to Chandler.
For these reasons, and the fact you have no clue as to what you are talking about, I don't have to agree with you.

So you are saying that it is not possible to compare the video to NIST's report and check for continuity?

Saying I don't have a clue about what I am talking about is not only unprofessional and arrogant. It is a personal attack.

A reaccuring personal attack and as much as I don't expect Bill to caution you on you blatant misconduct, he should do so in all fairness.

It would be akin to me saying someone that has much less jumps than me has no clue about skydiving.

Where did you study and get your degree in engineering? To say you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about is not a PA, it is an observation based on your lack of an educational and qualifying background in the matters needed to objectively draw conclusions.
Is the NIST report perfect? Nope. But it is two or three magnitudes of order closer to the truth than the scenarios put forth by the truthers, whose guesses are based on assumptions rather than facts and often defy the laws of physics.
Simple demonstration you can do for yourself to see how part of #7 could collapse at near 1g for a brief period. Get a few soda cans and stack them up. Now quickly pull out the bottom one.
The ones above it fell pretty fast! WOW!
That is a very, VERY, simple model of what happened.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Now who is diverging from the topic?

Dude, you need to stop frequenting those truther sites.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Now who is diverging from the topic?

Dude, you need to stop frequenting those truther sites.

I googlem 9/11 and click news, and most recent, whatever comes up is what i read or watch, whether it is glen beck or richard gage...

how is this off topic, you guys need a rude awakening every now and then, you act like it is the rest of the world against rhys, but it is not like that at all...
There is hundreds of posts on this thread and I replied to myself.

This isn't about you and me, it is about 9/11.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I asked you a VERY simple question, how the debris from the top of the towers hit the ground long before the rest of the towers finished collapsing at what you say was free-fall speed, and you refused to give an answer because you thought it was diverging from the topic.
We don't think the whole world is against you. Just the portion of the world that uses common sense.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

:
In Reply To
In Reply To
The only video I would have to go by is posted on Youtube. It is by no means complete and could easily have been edited by whomever for whatever reason. I do not know the complete list of video NIST had at their disposal. Same with Chandler.
The only thing I said was that using the videos from Youtube would be inaccurate, not using all the raw footage that was taken that day by many different people from many different angles., including recently released footage taken from a helicopter that was not available to Chandler.
For these reasons, and the fact you have no clue as to what you are talking about, I don't have to agree with you.

So you are saying that it is not possible to compare the video to NIST's report and check for continuity?

Saying I don't have a clue about what I am talking about is not only unprofessional and arrogant. It is a personal attack.

A reoccurring personal attack and as much as I don't expect Bill to caution you on you blatant misconduct, he should do so in all fairness.

It would be akin to me saying someone that has much less jumps than me has no clue about skydiving.

Where did you study and get your degree in engineering? To say you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about is not a PA, it is an observation based on your lack of an educational and qualifying background in the matters needed to objectively draw conclusions.
Is the NIST report perfect? Nope. But it is two or three magnitudes of order closer to the truth than the scenarios put forth by the truthers, whose guesses are based on assumptions rather than facts and often defy the laws of physics.
Simple demonstration you can do for yourself to see how part of #7 could collapse at near 1g for a brief period. Get a few soda cans and stack them up. Now quickly pull out the bottom one.
Shocked The ones above it fell pretty fast! WOW!
That is a very, VERY, simple model of what happened.

I did high school physics and achieved a general excellence award the same year (not for physics but in general). My physics teacher was an asshole, and though I passed i had no interest in it after that.

I had my own business making jewellery (casting, silver soldering and general manipulation) selling to a contemporary design store straight out of high school for 7 years until I broke my ulna and radius training for a skateboarding competition. I moved onto adventure tourism after that and here I am.

I may not be an engineer, but I have a good understanding of 'Basic physics' and it is 'very simple' to see that many anomalies occurred on 9/11.

I have also lived my life as a human being for 35 years and have excelled in every activity that I have applied myself to.

As you are an engineer, claiming that one must also be an engineer to fathom the mechanics of gravity and it’s forces on an object is not only unprofessional, it is also arrogant, ignorant and misleading.

Now answer the question without trying to belittle me and make yourself look like a hero;

Are you telling me that it is impossible to crosscheck the youtube video with the NIST report to check it for continuity?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

I may not be an engineer, but I have a good understanding of 'Basic physics' and it is 'very simple' to see that many anomalies occurred on 9/11

The fact that you see anomalies where there are none is indicative of your lack of unerstanding.

Quote

I had my own business making jewellery (casting, silver soldering and general manipulation) selling to a contemporary design store

How does that qualify you to assess what happened to the structures?

Quote

As you are an engineer, claiming that one must also be an engineer to fathom the mechanics of gravity and it’s forces on an object is not only unprofessional, it is also arrogant, ignorant and misleading.

I never made that claim. I only asked what your qualifications were. There is much more to understanding the nature of a collapse than just knowing the influence of gravity.

Quote

Now answer the question without trying to belittle me and make yourself look like a hero

I have no need or desire to belittle you. You do a good job of that yourself.

Quote

Are you telling me that it is impossible to crosscheck the youtube video with the NIST report to check it for continuity?

Yes, unless you believe that none of the videos posted on Youtube have been tampered with in any way, and that each and every video NIST had access to is posted on Youtube.

Face it, rhys. Each and every claim you have made has been shot down numerous times. Making those same claims again and again will not make them factual.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[philh 0]

Quote

Quote

Why would they need to fly the planes into buildings to make it seem more viable? why not just say it was a bomb or serious of bombs? that would invovle less conspirators, an important issue if they dont want to get caught?
Again perhaps you will provide a reaosnable asnwer to why no Iraqis on the planes if the US govt organsied it?

I try to avoid speculation these days, I have learned it can lead you way from you cause. but I will suggest a reason why they didn't 'just plant bombs'.

You do realise what facilities were in building 7 don't you? the fact they have denied the possibility of explosives is aginst the rules of investigting such a disaster, if the public were to find out/be told that terrorists can infltrate the CIA headquarters and other government secret spots without detection and carry out the attack, then the fear mongering wouldn't work because the american pulic wouldn't feel very well protected.

Shyam Sunder and John Gross will go down for drylabbing and 'serious movements' are being made at present to make sure this is fast tracked.

Once this has happened, then we can get the real answers to your questions.

I love the way you say you don't like to speculate and then you do exactly that. So what you are saying is that they didn't plant bombs because the the US public wouldn't feel protected Yet crashing planes into buildindgs did? Is this a joke? I thought conspiracy nuts believed the government wanted us to feel insecure so they can justify more repression. Which is it?
Perhaps you an also answer my quesiton: why no Iraqis on the planes?