A&E911 getting schooled

[Ry]

A&E911 getting schooled lol.

The 911 truth movement like occupy and the tea party got co-opted a long time ago.

This is what happened on 911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdW ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And that goes a lot deeper than yelling Building 7 fell too fast thermite thermite. And Way deeper than decrying NWO Bavarian Death cults globalist etc pick your path to nowhere.

[haarp]

dun dun DUN! He dismisses any neocon involvement, doesn't even talk about the fbi protecting the hijackers

[Ry]

neither does A&E911 though. They dont talk about anything but WTC7 and thermite.

[Int'l man of mystery]

dun dun DUN! He dismisses any neocon involvement, doesn't even talk about the fbi protecting the hijackers

In addition to that, his line of reasoning of why the neocons wouldn't have been involved in 9/11, fails to mention Afghanistan, the actual, pre-9/11 motives for going there and the fact that the official story alleges that the organization that the alleged hijackers are said to belong to was headquartered there. Rather, he focuses only on Iraq to try and demonstrate how the neocon involvement makes no sense. It is at this point where his line of reasoning fails.

[The_Big_Lebowski]

It's not that is fell too fast, so much as it fell precisely as though it were traveling through thin air at the full acceleration of gravity for a significant portion of it.

i.e. a ball dropped beside it would have fallen at the exact same speed.

How thousands of tons of steel, and concrete, etc. can literally be negated instantaneously into the equivalency of thin air bears some consideration.

There is also the consideration of making something appear to be lunacy in order to achieve a desired counter effect. Flip a coin on what they were thinking as it doesn't matter...obfuscate at will, or don't....people will draw their own conclusions just the same, and no two will be alike.

[Ry]

all good except that it didn't fall at free fall speed. One whole corner of the building was missing and the South wall was completely on fire. It didn't fall straight down either it fell towards the south. Now it was announced that it had fallen before it fell and the penthouse fell first and it did go down as if it were taken out demolition style but even a demolition doesn't make a building free fall. When you say exaggerations like that it discredits everything. They could take their findings to any academic circle and get them reviewed and published but they don't because they're wrong.

[The_Big_Lebowski]

all good except that it didn't fall at free fall speed. One whole corner of the building was missing and the South wall was completely on fire. It didn't fall straight down either it fell towards the south. Now it was announced that it had fallen before it fell and the penthouse fell first and it did go down as if it were taken out demolition style but even a demolition doesn't make a building free fall. When you say exaggerations like that it discredits everything. They could take their findings to any academic circle and get them reviewed and published but they don't because they're wrong.

The guy that discovered it (David Chandler...IIRC) brought it up with NIST, they analyzed it, and changed their final 9/11 report because of it, and admitted pure free fall did actually occur.

i.e. There's three parts but I believe it's all covered in part 1.

[Ry]

you must have watched a different video or heard what you wanted too because as the guy is saying they are admitting it was free fall the chart he is showing shows that it was not freefall and that it was still 5.4 seconds. And so what if it did fall too fast? So what? it explains nothings as to who did it or how or why.

[The_Big_Lebowski]

you must have watched a different video or heard what you wanted too because as the guy is saying they are admitting it was free fall the chart he is showing shows that it was not freefall and that it was still 5.4 seconds. And so what if it did fall too fast? So what? it explains nothings as to who did it or how or why.

The fall of the building plotted shows something like 2.5 seconds was at pure freefall which the final NIST report also now indicates after reviewing his data.

NIST changed their previous report to indicate a portion of the collapse is now indistinguishable from freefall.

How a section of that building equated instantaneously into thin air is not a casual observation. Somehow zero downward resistance was experienced there.

To say that the building did not experience freefall is incorrect. It has been reviewed by NIST, and this is their official conclusion at this point.

To state he/they should put it up for peer review when it doesn't need to be, and then use that to discredit the finding, and organization, is misleading.

[Phys]

You are wrong, The_Big_Lebowski.

2.5 seconds would be faster than free fall.

free fall for building 7 would be approx 3.88s give or take 0.002s

Building 7 fell in 3 stages and the time was 5.4s as Ry has indicated

Report in November 20, 2008 which was the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

source: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

peer review does matter in science