more problems with 911 NIST doesnt know how they came down

[xtratabasco]

Theres so many holes in the officail 911 story you could drive a semi through it.

Just start here http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


but this information (you can read the PDF letter at the link or google it)
completely shits on this governments story about how the WTC and building 7 came down.

Some of you have said over and over and over again that it was pancaked, just like this government has said, and now your world has been turned upside down.

Just read the text espcially the PDF and eat crow.

But thats ok, we all have to learn sometime, and hopefully you wont try to grasp at new straws and lies this government pumps out.





http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.







So if the NIST doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

wow, you sure changed your mind easily, like in 20 seconds.

lol

[xtratabasco]

backglass

if you have information that disputes the NISTs 10k page report, Im all ears.

and do send some pictures of the 757 if you can, but please stop pimping that 1 pound, unsindged piece of tin again, that just dont cut it.

[Titanic]

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

[xtratabasco]

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

it can if its pulled

[Snorri1234]

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

it can if its pulled

What?

So there were a bunch of people standing there pulling on the sides of the building to take them down?

[s.xkitten]

there could have been rockets on the ends of the falling perimeter columns too!

But seriously Xtra, I already disproved your free-fall theory, twice.

Do you need me to post it again?

[unriggable]

He loves a little conspircay, including moon missions.

[s.xkitten]

he sent me this long ass PM about why he believes in this stuff...

[jay_a2j]

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

it can if its pulled

What?

So there were a bunch of people standing there pulling on the sides of the building to take them down?

"pulled" as in brought down by demolition. Explosives set off to weaken each floor as it falls. The explosions themselves would shoot out debree (which explains the bone fragments found on nearby rooftops).

[unriggable]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

[jay_a2j]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

[unriggable]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

[s.xkitten]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

[heavycola]

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

it can if its pulled

What?

So there were a bunch of people standing there pulling on the sides of the building to take them down?

"pulled" as in brought down by demolition. Explosives set off to weaken each floor as it falls. The explosions themselves would shoot out debree (which explains the bone fragments found on nearby rooftops).

Yes, 'pulled' as in brought down by demolition. Explosives can actually break the laws of physics. The weakened floors were so weak they caused faster-than-freefall-freefall by exerting a force roughly equal to several thousand puppet strings all being yanked at once by Donald Rumsfeld (coincidence? i don't think so) from a secret bunker in the pentagon, which was later destroyed using a combination of an invisible plane and mass hypnosis. Similarly, bone fragments travel further and faster than concrete debree [sic] when propelled outwards from a weakened building being pulled down faster than the speed of sound by top-secret demolitions and a defence secretary. This explains their discovery on nearby rooftops. In fact it explains everything.

In my compromised mental state - my cynicism and disbelief are being pulled down faster than is actually possible by the weakness of this thread - i am ready to believe anything. Now would be a good time to start evangelising or selling me george foreman grills. PMs pls.

[s.xkitten]

[xtratabasco]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

[Titanic]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Which they didnt...How come none of the major engineering experts have commented saying it was in freefall. Also, dont give me a link to the person who does underwater studies, he knows as much about engineering as my goldfish.

[unriggable]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Conveniently without a link.

[xtratabasco]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Conveniently without a link.

ohhh for the love of God stop crying

cant you google it?




http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.







So if the NIST doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

wow, you sure changed your mind easily, like in 20 seconds.

lol

[soundout9]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Conveniently without a link.

ohhh for the love of God stop crying

cant you google it?




http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.







So if the NIST doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

wow, you sure changed your mind easily, like in 20 seconds.

lol

How long did it take you to type that?

[Dancing Mustard]

:lol:

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Conveniently without a link.

ohhh for the love of God stop crying

cant you google it?




http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/oc ... admits.htm


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.







So if the NIST doesnt know how the buildings came down does that mean you dont either?

wow, you sure changed your mind easily, like in 20 seconds.

lol

About as long as it took to type this

Freefall? How come the rubble and debris have fallen further then the building has collapsed? Nothing can fall faster then freefall.

it can if its pulled

What?

So there were a bunch of people standing there pulling on the sides of the building to take them down?

"pulled" as in brought down by demolition. Explosives set off to weaken each floor as it falls. The explosions themselves would shoot out debree (which explains the bone fragments found on nearby rooftops).

Yes, 'pulled' as in brought down by demolition. Explosives can actually break the laws of physics. The weakened floors were so weak they caused faster-than-freefall-freefall by exerting a force roughly equal to several thousand puppet strings all being yanked at once by Donald Rumsfeld (coincidence? i don't think so) from a secret bunker in the pentagon, which was later destroyed using a combination of an invisible plane and mass hypnosis. Similarly, bone fragments travel further and faster than concrete debree [sic] when propelled outwards from a weakened building being pulled down faster than the speed of sound by top-secret demolitions and a defence secretary. This explains their discovery on nearby rooftops. In fact it explains everything.

In my compromised mental state - my cynicism and disbelief are being pulled down faster than is actually possible by the weakness of this thread - i am ready to believe anything. Now would be a good time to start evangelising or selling me george foreman grills. PMs pls.

I'm still waiting for pictures of one of the bombs inside the Twin Towers though.





















Where's the pictures of the bombs Xtra?









Or can't you find one?




















and don't give us that faster than free fall BS again
























lol

[xtratabasco]

Lets see DM, I bet you voted against the findings of NIST


every fucking engineering firm in every legitimate country relies on NIST including the one you bootlick too.



you and sex kitten and backglass dont



LMFAO


you loose



try again

[jay_a2j]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

[xtratabasco]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

so another that tells NIST to f*ck off.


wow if you cant belive them, then who do you belive in? bush and the neocons?



damn you guys are tools

[jay_a2j]

Nearby rooftops were destroyed by the falling debris, jay, and if they're talking about further buildings, bone doesn't get carried that far. Whoever claims that must not be very smart.

Xtra could make a great politician - using provocative and obviously untrue language to advance his own agenda.

Just stop posting

What's that supposed to mean?

it means that he can't prove that what you said was wrong, but he disagrees with you.

No, it means his post was totally without merit or logic and thus not posting would actually help his cause.

so another that tells NIST to f*ck off.


wow if you cant belive them, then who do you belive in? bush and the neocons?



damn you guys are tools

Who are you talking too? MY post was talking about unriggable.