911 CONGRATULATIONS!! - Truthers Force NIST to Change Final Report on WTC7!

I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Fraud... Have your meds upped to "literate" levels.

Fraud said, in no uncertain terms, that the building falling at "free fall" speed ABSOLUTELY PROVES demolition and/or "prepping" the building for collapse.

His logical fallacy.

 

I said that, prove it.

 

Produce any controlled demolition that exhibits free fall speed.

 

video 3

 

That's what's called begging the question. Yet another example of a truther's lack of ability to put together a cohesive logical argument.

Is that why it took you so long to "find" these videos?

 

Nope that didn't do it.

The 'truthers' failed, after all.

Again.

 

From what part of your simple imagination did you conjure up this conclusion?

The video/s are conclusive, that building fell square to the ground

 

Not from my imagination, directly from NIST report on WTC7, and from what Chandler himself said in the videos linked in the OP.

You have looked at the evidence, haven't you?

The building fell square to the ground? From what part of your simple imagination did you conjure up this conclusion?

 

Looking back over the draft report, I see that the portion of the NW corner that Chandler refereed to was already in the draft, just not as fully elaborated on.

Seems he didn't 'force' them to do anything other than clarify what they had already reported and released to the public.

The data in the draft (for public comment) that Chandler responded to did not change. (Specifically the data that went into and came out of the model.) What Chandler did was have them break down what they already had into individual segments of the total collapse. NIST treated it as one event, "truthers" wanted to focus on one aspect and view it in isolation. NIST obliged and broke it down (in the final) into 3 segments and elaborated on the middle (free-fall) more.

Whoops. Not much of a 'truther' victory there is it?

 

proving freefall







It is still a fraudulent chart but they nonetheless admitted freefall.


TRUTHERS WON!

 

In the first draft, before Chandler's pleas to make it more layman friendly.

Whoops. Another 'truther' claim shown false.

 

Well, right, there was another time you said it...

Which of course is a fallacy. Closest to the fallacy of false dichotomy.

You assume that free fall can ONLY take place after "demolition or prepping," when in reality there's absolutely nothing supporting that nonsensical claim.

"Proving" that, for a couple of seconds, a building came down at close to free fall speed proves nothing.

Moreover, it ignores EVERY piece of evidence supporting the generally accepted theory. In the constant fashion of 9/11 Deniers, you focus on something that you perceive as an anomaly (which isn't really at all) and dismiss the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

You discard 999 pieces of evidence regarding the generally accepted explanation, so you can focus on the one that (in your limited mindset) doesn't.

 

No rebuttal so you move the goal posts to change the subject matter!

Let me put you back on track.

IT FREEFELL!

FREEFALL = "NOT NATURAL" = DEMOLITION!

 

nist admitted that freefal can only occur when there is no structural support. review the videos.

you need to proof that a building can globally fail naturally.

Naturally means without demolition or prepping.

Failing that you fail.

TWOOFERS WIN!

 

Freefall means to fall at the speed of gravitational acceleration. The fact that you say it's "not natural" to fall at the speed of gravity shows you know nothing of the physics you proclaim to rely on.

Ok... And even if they did, there are other ways to remove structural support besides a planned demolition.

 

nice contradiction.

now you wanna explain how global failure can occur in a natural collapse.

Stop jaw jacking and put up some data.

 

Dr. Judy Wood, PhD. has the answers you seek.

 

(1) There wasn't a "global" failure. Just another 9/11 Denier lie.
(2) It wasn't a "natural" collapse. It was a collapse after an entire day of unchecked raging fires. It's not "natural" for buildings to be on fire for entire days.

 

fire would cause a natural collapse.

Do you know the difference?

Only global failures comes strait down. Do you deny the building came straight down?

 

I dont seek answers I give them

In fact I think AWD is having problems getting the twists out of his undies about now LMAO

 

Apologies, that was no directed at you. Who is AWD?

 

Yes. I deny the building came straight down. Because it didn't come straight down.

Here's where you link me to a clumsily-made Youtube "proof" that it came straight down, right?

 

Yes...you don't believe clumsily made actual video. You only believe "officially" produced presentations. Looked pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) straight down to me.

 

One of the things that I always laughed about about Richard Gage's argument is that he always makes two diametrically opposed assertions right next to each other in his speech.

First he claims that the buildings came straight down into their own footprint.

Second he claims that steel was ejected laterally at speeds that could only be accomplished by explosives.

Which is it? Did the building fall into its own footprint, or was steel ejected laterally?

 

I don't doubt it "looked" straight down to you. Your confirmation bias will make it "look" like anything that will support your preordained conclusion.

How about those directed energy weapons? You're one of those believers, right?