Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Aug 14, 2011.
Didn't say "the government".
Nonresistive constant gravitational acceleration. How do you define freefall?
Nist stated it, freefall, chandler agreed and so do I.
building collapses are local, not global, and/or they just tip over.
Now by basic observation any dummy can correctly assess that the building on the left (wtc7) fell at the same rate as the 3 acknowledged demolitions on the right.
Now any building that comes down for virtually any reason other than complete vaporization from a nuke etc, can be labelled a "collapse".
Improper definitions is how the mafia gub terrorizes the people. They stop it from getting into court, establish and legitimize the use of the new word "collapse" as official for demolition and now you cannot tell one from the other. 50 years later when it finall gets into court well ain that a biatch, its too late to prosecute anyone.
Collapse begins immediately after the detonation sequence (stage 1) completes.
Yeah. So...I should just take your word for it that the frame rate of those animated gifs haven't been altered in any way from real time, that the camera perspective is exactly the same on all three buildings, and that each gif begins at the point of collapse initiation?
Except...in two of your videos of WTC7 the HVAC penthouse has already crashed down through the center of the building before the GIF even starts, in the third the penthouse is in motion right as the gif begins, and all three gifs are different lengths.
Any dummy can correctly assess that an animated gif on the internet isn't science.
yeh but I have your pals at NIST that validated wtc 7 was a freefall. So you are claiming that the other 3 acknowledged demolitions really did not freefall is that your position?
You go Oz Man!
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!
besides fire had nothing to do with it at all, total fabrication.
Yeah, I see some differences also, maybe a 1 or 2/10ths of a second...
Yeah....a real major difference huh? Really drastic! Refocus....shift. Blur....
Par for the course.
Every building brought down with explosives will have different characteristics, due to the design and material differences of each building.
Any time and speed differences would be miniscule and irrelevant.
WTC1, 2 and 7 were engineered demolition.
yup and then they covered it all up choosing their words to give them plausible deniability!
scabs and traitors to the people
You missed the point(s)
1. Perspective plays a role in the perception of rate.
The further away something is, the slower it appears to move in a video. If a taller building is filmed from a greater distance it can appear the same height, and would appear to fall at a slower rate then a smaller building filmed from a closer distance. Because of this, it's important to know the height of the comparison buildings to see if they are the same height.
2. Frame rate plays a role in the perception of rate.
Video has to be played back at the proper speed in order to represent real time. Slow a frame rate down, or speed a frame rate up and things will appear to move at different speeds. Because of this it's important to know that the video is playing back at the appropriate speed.
3. If we are going to judge the speed at which a building collapsed, we need to know the point at which the building began to collapse. At least two of the reference videos do not show the beginning of the collapse and all three videos are different lengths. I haven't bothered to open them in image ready to count exactly how many frames different they really are, but I think the point stands without me having to do that.
Maybe we're just standing at the wrong angle to determine if it was free fall or not. I knew there had to be a logical answer.
well if nists chart was not good enough for you
maybe you like chandlers better.
Please try to pay attention. I was addressing your lame attempt to compare demolished buildings to the collapse of WTC7 using animated GIF images that are not analogous.
yes please pay attention I was addressing your lame attempt to dance around the fact it freefell and was admitted by nist.
Two and one half seconds does not equal the entire collapse.
it equals demolition UNLESS you can dream up some way the supports can be globally removed causing it to freefall for 2.5 seconds.
without demolition of course.
I will be waiting LOL
Supports were not globally removed, so your argument is invalid.
It's clearly not impossible, supports were not globally removed. The small portion of the building that reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration did so for 2.5 seconds.
NIST showed this fact in its initial public preview, then explained it more fully in the final release, since the teacher couldn't understand the initial explanation.
NIST's chart says the north face roofline, either nist is lying or you are and I am betting you are.
sure enough look at that
why have you chosen to lie about something so obvious?
The north face roof line is not the entirety of the building, therefore 'global removal of supports' is an incorrect and invalid term.
The small portion of the building that reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration did so for only 2.5 seconds. Chandler's chart shows even less.
I never stated that any part of the building remained standing. I clearly said that the small portion of the building that reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration did so for only 2.5 seconds. Chandler's chart shows even less.
The entire building did not reach the equivalent of free fall acceleration. Only a small portion, for a brief period. Even Chandler agrees with this. Therefore free fall was not global.
WTC7 was evaporated from the bottom by Direct Energy Weapons. Hence the global collapse and freefall.
NIST does not state the whole building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration.
But they DID once hide the fact that free fall occurred at all! Only pressure from truthers got them to admit, that, well, yes...there was some free fall.
First there wasn't. Now there was. Something smells awfully "official" to me.
Neither NIST nor Chandler claim WTC7 globally collapsed in the equivalent of free fall acceleration, therefore your straw man argument is invalid.
Separate names with a comma.