Will NIST admit free fall again after truthers force change?

It's been established that NIST had to change their report to admit free fall of WTC7. Are WTC's 1 and 2 next?

Just when an "official" supporter gets cornered......we can't talk about it any more.

 

The only change NIST made to the report was to describe what had already been made public in more laymen friendly terms.

Only a small portion of WTC7 reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration, and only for > 2.5 seconds. NIST and Chandler agree on this point.

 

I gotcha. Glad you were able to make the call out and shut down the problem.

 

Ok i had to get my hazmat gear out to prepare for toxic bullsht that I am about to be subject to.

Which "small" portion, and show your data

 

The same one that's been discussed across multiple threads for years now.

The data is in the NIST report. It's even mentioned in the videos you posted. Did you watch them?

 

so how long you going to dodge the point?

either qualify your position or ****.


and the above poster is just trolling with their own brand of BS

 

NIST expanded on it's initial analysis because of Chandler's question, to make the report more user-friendly.

One part of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

The full data and analysis may be found in NIST's report on WTC7.

 

No it does not say that in the report.

neither it does not say only one part

 

This is the measurement of a point on north roof line, while external collapse commenced.

 

Which means what exactly? (besides the intended, non specific distractions).

 

It means only one part of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, not the entirety.

It was not 'global free fall'.

 

So you're looking for technicalities to get you off the hook? Debate the subject head on for once, without the sidestepping, the call outs to your team, the off shoots that have little to do with the original point, the ridicule, the refocusing, or the abandoning of the point at hand?
You can't, and you won't.

 

I've addressed the point head on.

Do you need it repeated?

 

You've addressed your talking points. Nothing specific.

 

I have specifically addressed what Chandler and NIST stated. I quoted them both directly.

 

You passed the buck (again). You avoided the point. You try and change the parameters of the OP. Classic "official" propaganda, of which, you are apparently one of the leaders.

 

I did no such thing. I pointed out that the OP is a false claim, and I provided citations showing why.

That's not passing the buck, it's refuting a false claim.

'Truthers' forced nothing.

 

Had truthers not forced the point, the report would say nothing pertaining to free fall.

 

That's incorrect. The report already had the data and analysis. Chandler could not understand what he was reading, so NIST went into greater detail regarding the 2.25 seconds that the northwest corner of the building reached the equivalent of free fall acceleration. They made it easier for the public to understand.

That was pointed out and sourced early in the other thread.

If you can refute this, go ahead.

 

No...it was CHANGED....after the fact. Like many things in the "official" BS story.

 

Not 'after the fact'. NIST released a preliminary report for the public (ie the entire rest of the world) to look over, review, critique and ask questions before submitting the final report. They wanted to make sure it was understandable and as complete as possible.

That's what scientists do, you know - they seek peer review to make sure they haven't overlooked something or made false assumptions.

Chandler had a hard time understand a portion, so NIST spelled the event out in greater detail. Nothing was 'changed'.

If you can refute this, go ahead.

 

Chandler pressed them on the point, and they relented by modifying the report, from "no free fall" to "some free fall".

 

The data for the NW corner was in the initial released report. Chandler whined that he couldn't understand it, so they went into greater detail. Peer review, it's a good idea.

Doesn't sound like an entity trying to hide something to me.

 

They went in to greater detail, because their original supposition, was faulty.

 

Not faulty; their explanation of the analysis was over the head of a jr. high school physics teacher, so they made it simpler.