Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.

None of this is in the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST said that they did roughly the same calculations I did, and came to the same conclusions.

Since the math is BS, you should easily be able to show how it is BS.

Your link does not do that.

I am still waiting.

[RandomGuy]

your math is two-dimensional, and does not consider asymmentries.

That's it? A non-sequiteur?

Oh man, that's weak.

Expand on that.

By the way, I am still waiting on why you were wrong about the rock.

What force caused the rock to move off to the side again?

[Galileo]

The NIST said that they did roughly the same calculations I did, and came to the same conclusions.

Since the math is BS, you should easily be able to show how it is BS.

Your link does not do that.

I am still waiting.

NIST never released the calculations, because they do not support their theory.

Your math doesn't explain why an object falling into the WTC would not deflect off to the side.

The force you cite, 75 times the static force, is not enough to destroy the entire building, only to crush the top part of it.

As the top portion hits the lower portion, it decelerates from resisitance. You claim it accelerates. Acceleration only occurs to the chunks that did deflect away and met only air resistance.

[RandomGuy]

The structure below provided minimal resistance because explosives blew away the structure. This is all very simple. The Twin Towers had no fires or structural damage below floor 76.

The NIST report does not address this at all.

You are quoting from a press release statement written by NIST political managers, not by NIST scientists. The NIST report says nothing about this.

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

[DarrinS]

some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.

None of this is in the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

I'll believe the analysis offered on a moonbat website over the analyses done by any of the following:

NIST
ASCE
MIT
Popular Mechanics

[RandomGuy]

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

"Free fall" debunked quite simply.

[Galileo]

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

It shows some resistance, but not enough. During most of the first half of the fall, it approached free fall speed.

22 seconds is too long, it did not take that long. 14 seconds is closer.

[DarrinS]

More analysis from professional engineers on WTC 7

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

[Galileo]

"Free fall" debunked quite simply.

who are you debunking? The Straw Man?

[RandomGuy]

It shows some resistance, but not enough. During most of the first half of the fall, it approached free fall speed.

22 seconds is too long, it did not take that long. 14 seconds is closer.

You didn't even watch the video did you?

One took about 14, the other took longer.

Perfectly in line with the math I gave when one factors in a certain amount of deceleration (resistance), as I did.

Math you have yet to disprove.

[Galileo]

I'll believe the analysis offered on a moonbat website over the analyses done by any of the following:

NIST
ASCE
MIT
Popular Mechanics

Jim Hoffman is far more brilliant than anyone at the places you cite. Read his analysis, you'll see.

NIST does not do the analysis that we have been talking about. They are free to adopt anything that Popular Mechanics, ASCE puts out.

Popular Mechanics stuff is all qualitative. In fact, all the analysis from you debunkers in this issue is qualitiative.

They don't put it out because their theory is wrong.

[DarrinS]

who are you debunking? The Straw Man?

And WTC 7 actually took 8.2 seconds (not 6.6).

[DarrinS]

Jim Hoffman is far more brilliant than anyone at the places you cite. Read his analysis, you'll see.

NIST does not do the analysis that we have been talking about. They are free to adopt anything that Popular Mechanics, ASCE puts out.

Popular Mechanics stuff is all qualitative. In fact, all the analysis from you debunkers in this issue is qualitiative.

They don't put it out because their theory is wrong.

Jim Hoffman is not a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a computer programmer.

[DarrinS]

Can you say, Coo coo for Coacoa Puffs?

Here's the legendary Jim Hoffman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAJJASlY3A



Where's his math?

[Galileo]

Jim Hoffman is not a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a computer programmer.

so what? His analysis is brilliant.

[Galileo]

And WTC 7 actually took 8.2 seconds (not 6.6).

that's bull .

What's your point?

[Yonivore]

that's bull .

What's your point?

I think that is his point. "That's bull ," isn't exactly a rebuttal.

[Galileo]

You didn't even watch the video did you?

One took about 14, the other took longer.

Perfectly in line with the math I gave when one factors in a certain amount of deceleration (resistance), as I did.

Math you have yet to disprove.

I agree one took 14 seconds, the other about 17 to 18 seconds.

What's your point?

The 9/11 Commission says they fell in 10 seconds, why don't you debunk them?

[Galileo]

I think that is his point. "That's bull ," isn't exactly a rebuttal.

yes it is.

[DarrinS]

so what? His analysis is brilliant.

Just watched his little youtube video. LOL at him comparing small buildings destroyed by earthquakes to the WTC 1 & 2. Did he think they were going to topple over like trees?

[Yonivore]

yes it is.

Maybe in your "60-is-30," world. But, in the real world, "that's bull ," is generally followed by a reasoned, well-supported, alternative view.

[Galileo]

Just watched his little youtube video. LOL at him comparing small buildings destroyed by earthquakes to the WTC 1 & 2. Did he think they were going to topple over like trees?

You're too stupid to understand Hoffman.

why don't you try Dr. Suess?



You're also a defender of mass murder, so why should I trust you?

[Galileo]

Maybe in your "60-is-30," world. But, in the real world, "that's bull ," is generally followed by a reasoned, well-supported, alternative view.

In my world the videos are self-evident.

6.6 seconds.

Show me where Thomas Jefferson has reasoned, well-supported arguments for the self-evident rights of man?

[DarrinS]

You're too stupid to understand Hoffman.

why don't you try Dr. Suess?



You're also a defender of mass murder, so why should I trust you?

If I ever see this dimwit on the street, I'm giving him a swift kick in the nuts.

[Yonivore]

In my world the videos are self-evident.

Yeah, we know.

6.6 seconds.

Have you validated the fps rate of the videos on which your 6.6 is based? How many times were they duplicated before you viewed them. What is the origin and are you viewing original, unedited, non-duplicated video?

Show me where Thomas Jefferson has reasoned, well-supported arguments for the self-evident rights of man?

Where does Jefferson mention self-evident rights? Or, are you referring to self-evident truths and unalienable rights?