From page 45 of NIST NCSTAR 1A Notice that the NIST uses the term "negligible support" in reference to steel structure that if it had supplied ANY support at all, would have prevented the falling bit from ever reaching free fall acceleration. The NIST either demonstrates gross incompetence or intent to commit fraud. Pick one..... Anybody who can manage to pull a "C" grade from a SCIENCE 101 class can get this. Why are people on the public payroll allowed to get away with this sort of thing?
Correction, speed is NOT acceleration and even if you say that the North & West walls fell as simply a shell, the fact of free fall, clearly indicates that there was NO resistance at all under the falling bit, it has yet to be adequately explained as to just exactly how you get all of the support removed and all at the same time.
I said nothing of the west face,and i posted SPEED,and meant it as such. And all the support from the FACE of a building?....Are you kidding?
Do you understand the difference between speed & acceleration? also note that the North & West walls are visible descending together as a unit, and no matter how thin you think that bit was, the fact is that the bit that is observed in motion, was a physical object that obeys the laws of physics. No resistance under the falling mass, means exactly that no resistance and to have ALL of the resistance removed for 8 floors and all at the same time, just exactly what magic produces that result?
I understand the difference quite well,I said 'speed' because the mind can make the connection faster than with 'velocity'
After watching this... 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg ...and looking at this info,... September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (2:40:21 time mark) ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo ...I'd say fraud.
You use the terms "speed" & "velocity" however do you understand that ACCELERATION is different from speed or velocity in that it describes a constantly increasing speed?
Bottom line here, do you get it that WTC7 descended at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity for 2.25 sec? You have repeatedly attempted to negate a scientific reality that has been agreed upon by both the NIST and the "truther" community. so in the face of experts who agree upon what is stated, what reason do you give in your disagreement?
No, it didn't. You have been shown why your statement above is false and yet you keep re-posting it. Why can't truthers just tell the truth?
to see the total madness of this whole thing I invite the casual reader to look up the NIST report ( NIST NC STAR 1A ) and see for yourself, and also the material on WTC.net and http://911speakout.org/ etc...... The fall, rate of fall, and the fact that the building or at least the part of it that is visible ( the North & West walls) keeps its shape during that 2.25 sec.