Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

NIST 9/11 report EXPOSED-A former employee Speaks Out

1567810

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob You don't believe in Physics you don't believe errors and discrepancies matter you don't believe eyewitnesses. You don't believe whistleblowers, you don't believe what you read in secret papers.

    What do you believe in is government agencies are telling you the honest truth about 9/11?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob Freefall is a smoking gun.

    It's basic Physics. Go to your window drop an apple out it just falls to the ground no resistance. What NIST is claiming is this same apple fell at the same rate as WTC7 with no resistance. Can't happen 47 floors have steel columns and steel floor trusses holding up each floor! The only way this can happen if roughly same time all the support below is gone and then the floors will just fall through empty space to the ground. Floor after floor would be hitting each other thus slowing down the acceleration of the collapse. This a crock that NIST is selling to people who are not well informed about what freefall is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob You then ignore what FEMA found. Highly corroded steel with big chunks broken off and this can only be caused by high temp. NIST states even in their report by 5 pm where the steel beam came off its seat at column 79 between floor 12 and 13, the steel beam was only exposed to a temp of 400c

    Steel corrodes above 1300c, 1000c could be possible with Sulphur.

    FEMA finding a liquid made of Iron and Sulphur meant the steel melted. There right there is another smoking gun what people saw was a liquid made of Iron and Sulphur probably mixed in with other materials.

    You have two damning pieces of evidence in Freefall and corroded steel WTC7 was brought down intentionally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob then you have to take into account the discrepancies with the official account. Finding a hijacker passport found by a passerby who just hands it over and never heard from again. Hijackers training at US military schools in the 90's. Hijackers taking flying lessons at schools funded by the CIA and the Saudis. The CIA not telling the FBI these guys were in the country to carry out the attack. White House shutting down FBI investigations into Saudi Arabia involvement with 9/11. The 9/11 Israeli involvement files are classified till 2037. I could go with the problems with 9/11 what does amazes me with this information people online still believe the official story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob Freefall is a smoking gun.

    It's basic Physics. Go to your window drop an apple out it just falls to the ground no resistance. What NIST is claiming is this same apple fell at the same rate as WTC7 with no resistance. Can't happen 47 floors have steel columns and steel floor trusses holding up each floor! The only way this can happen if roughly same time all the support below is gone and then the floors will just fall through empty space to the ground. Floor after floor would be hitting each other thus slowing down the acceleration of the collapse. This a crock that NIST is selling to people who are not well informed about what freefall is.
    Perfect example.
    Either you don't understand what freefall is or means, or you don't understand what is written. Or it's both.

    The NIST report very specifically says that the build fell with resistance.
    The numbers you quote repeatedly very specifically state this.

    It's the same for every point you're ranting about.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Perfect example.
    Either you don't understand what freefall is or means, or you don't understand what is written. Or it's both.

    The NIST report very specifically says that the build fell with resistance.
    The numbers you quote repeatedly very specifically state this.

    It's the same for every point you're ranting about.

    It's faith-based pseudoscience it not real science. Why has NIST not released their data for independent researchers to take a look at then? Freefall cannot occur in a building with structural resistance below it just can't happen that's just a fact and nothing you say or do will change that. NIST model cannot be verified or even studied it essentially worthless for understanding what caused the collapse.

    They have not shown how those core and perimeter steel columns broke apart when the Penthouse collapsed. Even the time the building started to fall from the top to the bottom does not match up with the videos online. You can count the time on the NIST model and video online and see the difference in fall rate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's faith-based pseudoscience it not real science. Why has NIST not released their data for independent researchers to take a look at then? Freefall cannot occur in a building with structural resistance below it just can't happen that's just a fact and nothing you say or do will change that. NIST model cannot be verified or even studied it essentially worthless for understanding what caused the collapse.

    They have not shown how those core and perimeter steel columns broke apart when the Penthouse collapsed. Even the time the building started to fall from the top to the bottom does not match up with the videos online. You can count the time on the NIST model and video online and see the difference in fall rate.
    Again, you either don't understand what free fall is, or you don't understand what you have read in the NIST report.

    The NIST figures, that you quoted, specifically say that the building encountered resistance. If you can't even get black and white words that you quote directly right, why should anyone trust you? You're obviously not very attentive to details.

    You are now throwing out more factoids because you do not want to linger on this point, because you know that you don't have the understanding to actually address it.

    And hilariously, you are declaring that freefall cannot occur as fact based on your own authority.
    Just like you were declaring for a fact that a 757 couldn't fly low enough to hit the pentagon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you either don't understand what free fall is, or you don't understand what you have read in the NIST report.

    The NIST figures, that you quoted, specifically say that the building encountered resistance.

    You are now throwing out more factoids because you do not want to linger on this point, because you know that you don't have the understanding to actually address it.

    And hilariously, you are declaring that freefall cannot occur as fact based on your own authority.
    Just like you were declaring for a fact that a 757 couldn't fly low enough to hit the pentagon.

    This is NIST claim. They are claiming freefall in stage 2. Stage 1 could not have resulted in freefall across the perimeter of the building if you believe that you are going to have explain how in 2 seconds the entire structure underneath just disappeared. And you can't ignore this flaw like NIST has done. Their computer model is running for 20 seconds + and giving enough time to make it seem like this is what happened.

    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob Just like you were declaring for a fact that a 757 couldn't fly low enough to hit the pentagon.


    I still don't believe the government version the plane that hit the Pentagon was going 530mph close to the ground.

    I suspect it was going much slower 300 to 400 mph maybe even less you want to decrease speed when approaching from the ground.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob this visual aspect just shows you how wrong NIST is.

    Watch the NIST model. Time the Penthouse leaves the roof and the time the right side wall starts to move. What time do you have? And notice the collapse unfolds differently with their model.



    Now time the actual collapse video with NIST video!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
    Why was the acceleration less than gravity in stage one and three?

    How long would it take for an apple to fall from the roof to the ground. Please show the math you used to reach this number.
    (it's high school physics, so should be trivial for you.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why was the acceleration less than gravity in stage one and three?

    How long would it take for an apple to fall from the roof to the ground. Please show the math you used to reach this number.
    (it's high school physics, so should be trivial for you.)

    It's made up theory by NIST that's what happened.

    Stages 1 they claiming the external columns got buckled and this allowed for stage 2 freefall, for me, it's a convoluted mess.

    However, this fraud was exposed in their computer sim model where it depicts what they believed happened!

    Fortunately, someone on 9/11 recorded the building collapsing in real time, so we can expose this fraud.

    Forget the floors collapsing below the fraud is there to see when the Penthouse disappeared and the time it took for right corner wall on the north side to start making movements and crumbling. You can see how long NIST gave for the floors to collapse along the perimeter wall from left to right roughly over 20+ seconds.

    Reality is though and you have the video Kingmob when the Penthouse disappeared and the right wall started to come down with the rest of the building took only 6 to 7 seconds later. Less time means the likelihood the resistance was removed before it started to fall.

    You can't add time to support your version of the collapse, in the real world that's called fraud.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's made up theory by NIST that's what happened.

    Stages 1 they claiming the external columns got buckled and this allowed for stage 2 freefall, for me, it's a convoluted mess.

    However, this fraud was exposed in their computer sim model where it depicts what they believed happened!

    .
    You dodged the questions again.
    1) The NIST claimed that the acceleration was less than gravity in stage 1 and stage 3. Why?
    2) How long would an apple take to reach the ground from the same height?
    (I'm curious about that, because I don't think you can actually do the math here.)

    Just answer these questions directly please. I will not respond to random rants about other points. It's not worth the effort of deciphering your terrible grammar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    You dodged the questions again.
    1) The NIST claimed that the acceleration was less than gravity in stage 1 and stage 3. Why?
    2) How long would an apple take to reach the ground from the same height?
    (I'm curious about that, because I don't think you can actually do the math here.)

    Just answer these questions directly please. I will not respond to random rants about other points. It's not worth the effort of deciphering your terrible grammar.

    Maybe you are not as smart as you think you are?
    /
    Stage 2 freefall? It occurred on 8 floors. What freefall? Drop an apple out the window gravity will take the apple to the ground. Freefall in WTC7 means some of the floors that came down freely by gravity and met no resistance on the way down.

    Stage 1 there was resistance, that's the start where NIST alleges the columns started to buckle and weaken, it not freefall then.

    Stage 3 the upper North face will be meeting resistance from the collapsed structure below and debris pile.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob I will not respond to random rants about other points

    Is because you don't understand what NIST model showing you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Kingmob

    The computer simulation of the collapse of WTC7 exposes the fraud. NIST ran a longer simulation of floors falling away across the perimeter of the building ( about 20+ seconds) It easy to calculate time, the Penthouse disappeared, and the right corner wall on North side started to buckle and move.

    Thier simulation is a fraud it does not match up with the actual collapse caught on video. It took only seven seconds when the Penthouse fell for the right corner on the North side to start falling down in real time.

    The reality, the seven seconds it took for the right corner wall to fall with the rest of the building is further proof WTC7 was brought down by unnatural means.

    You don't have to take my word for this you have the videos to count the seconds yourself!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Stage 1 there was resistance, that's the start where NIST alleges the columns started to buckle and weaken, it not freefall then.

    Stage 3 the upper North face will be meeting resistance from the collapsed structure below and debris pile.

    But you said that the NIST claimed there was no resistance...

    So either you can't read so good, or you were lying, or your conspiracy is so silly and convoluted, you don't even understand your own claims.

    Also, how long would an apple take to hit the ground from the same height.
    Are you unable to figure out how to calculate this? If so, just say so. Dodging the question looks way more embarrassing on your part.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    WTC7 is dodgy as fuçk. It makes no sense that it just collapsed like that, there was 'nothing' to collapse it.

    Pentagon crash is dodgy as fuçk too. As is the Williamsburg crash site.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you said that the NIST claimed there was no resistance...

    So either you can't read so good, or you were lying, or your conspiracy is so silly and convoluted, you don't even understand your own claims.

    Also, how long would an apple take to hit the ground from the same height.
    Are you unable to figure out how to calculate this? If so, just say so. Dodging the question looks way more embarrassing on your part.

    The ball falling down at the same rate as WTC7.

    For this to have occurred the columns, steel beams and steel floor trusses and frames have disappeared before the fall.

    WTC7 can't come down at speed of gravity when there structural resistance on each floor.

    At 0.40 seconds on this video will explain it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob But you said that the NIST claimed there was no resistance...

    Stage 2 they accept there was no resistance.


    Stage 1 they claim acceleration was less than gravity. There was resistance. It was freefall and there no doubt in my mind freefall occurred in stage 1.

    They had to say slower than freefall because their entire analysis is suspect if they said freefall occurred in stage 1.

    Stage 1 is basically where all started buckling of columns and floors.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob Stage 1 initiating event is suspect. They claim a fire heated up column 79 steel beam(girder), it thermally expanded and got knocked off its seat and fell and this lead to failure of the floors beneath, the floors above then fell and then you see the Penthouse fall. This then leads to failures across the width of the building as the building collapsed.

    The truther movement has shown this could not have happened because the girders had fasteners and shear stud bolts welded in between the steel beam and girder.

    NIST get around this problem they removed shears studs and fasteners to support their theory fire caused the beam to expand a few inches and come off its seat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful. You said that the NIST said there was no resistance.
    This was another one of your lies.

    They do say there was resistance.

    Also you have yet to actually put a number to how long it would take for an apple to fall.
    This shows that you are incapable of doing a high school level physics problem.

    Do you understand why no one takes you in anyway seriously?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob This what NIST claimed.

    34. (added 6/27/12) For the WTC 7 16-story model for structural response to fire effects, why did NIST model the girders without shear studs, given that articles published in the open literature showed drawings of typical floor framing plans of WTC 7 with shear studs on the girders?

    For the 16-story model of WTC 7, NIST did not include shear studs on the girders based on the following reasoning:

    (1) The structural floor plans and erection drawings for typical floors are consistent and do not indicate any shear studs on the girders,

    (2) The Salvarinas paper did not cite a source for its figure showing "Typical Floor Framing," and

    (3) To make the modifications to the framing on Floor 10 would have required accounting for the structural changes shown on drawing S-8-10 (steel plates on bottom flanges of floor beams, shear studs on girders, and reinforced connections), and making the attendant changes to the floor loading in order to be consistent. Since the drawings did not provide any information on revised floor loading or revised connections, this was not possible.


    https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

    This a lie. NIST is trying to make out some girders had shears studs and others girders did not. So they decided to leave out shear studs where they claim the event started.

    In 2012 by FOIA request structural engineer Ron Brookman found that the Salvarinas "Fabrication and Construction Aspects," a document that outlines the basic structural system of WTC 7, shows 30 shear studs on the girder in question.

    It had diagrams and drawings so we know NIST was lying. NIST completed their WTC7 study in 2008, but they got caught out 4 years lying about this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes. You have shown you can copy paste.
    But you said that the NIST claimed there was no resistance.
    You lied again.

    And you are still dodging a high school level math problem because you can't do it...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful. You said that the NIST said there was no resistance.
    This was another one of your lies.

    They do say there was resistance.

    Also you have yet to actually put a number to how long it would take for an apple to fall.
    This shows that you are incapable of doing a high school level physics problem.

    Do you understand why no one takes you in anyway seriously?

    Are you stupid Stage 2 they admit there was no resistance for 2.25 seconds

    What is stage 2 meaning for you?
    stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yes. And there was resistance before and there was resistance after.
    You said they claimed that there was no resistance at all.
    You lied.
    Or you have trouble with reading comphrenison as well as with basic math


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. And there was resistance before and there was resistance after.
    You said they claimed that there was no resistance at all.
    You lied.
    Or you have trouble with reading comphrenison as well as with basic math

    I did not say that I said Freefall cannot occur in a natural building collapse. For freefall to occur the support underneath the top floors had to be taken out simultaneously when the building started falling.

    We don't even have to debate Freefall anyhow their analysis is flawed. You have evidence as just posted it, they left out shear studs and fasteners on the steel beams. Science you have to account for all scenarios and probabilities and NIST has not done that.

    Shears and Fasteners were on the girder, NIST deliberately covered up that fact. I truly believe that because they tried to claim no eyewitness saw Molten Steel or Iron another lie. FEMA found evidence of Iron Liquid on the steel in 2002.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I did not say that
    Yes you did. You are now lying about your own words.
    It's basic Physics. Go to your window drop an apple out it just falls to the ground no resistance. What NIST is claiming is this same apple fell at the same rate as WTC7 with no resistance.

    So, about that basic physics...
    How long does it take for an apple to fall to the ground from the same height. If you don't know how to do that, please say so. You're embarrassing yourself by ignoring the question...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes you did. You are now lying about your own words.


    So, about that basic physics...
    How long does it take for an apple to fall to the ground from the same height. If you don't know how to do that, please say so. You're embarrassing yourself by ignoring the question...

    Stage 1 to 3 is collapse from the top floor to the bottom when the right wall started moving down. You just don't understand all the principles NIST is claiming occurred. For someone supporting the official version, you don't know a lot.

    There different mechanisms with Stage 1, bottom floors on the East side falling, Penthouse eastside falling, and then building starting to descend down a few floors.

    I have provided you with a video showing a ball coming down at the same rate as right corner wall face.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Stage 1 to 3 is collapse from the top floor to the bottom when the right wall started moving down. You just don't understand all the principles NIST is claiming occurred. For someone supporting the official version, you don't know a lot.

    There different mechanisms with Stage 1, bottom floors on the East side falling, Penthouse eastside falling, and then building starting to descend down a few floors.
    Waffle.
    You said that the NIST said there was no resistance. They said no such thing.
    You claimed the NIST said something they did not. You either lied or you are unable to understand the report or both.
    There's no point engaging with any of your rants about the report because not only can you get that straight, you can't even get what you said about it straight.
    You won't even own up when you're caught out.
    I have provided you with a video showing a ball coming down at the same rate as right corner wall face.
    Yup, but that's not what I asked for.

    I asked you to provide a figure and show how you worked it out.
    I asked this, because I don't think you know how to do it, or even what free fall actually means.
    I don't think you are capable of even a basic level of physics.

    Copypasting a link to a video does not convince me otherwise.
    And to anyone reading this, your constant dodging has kinda shown that you are unable to do what I've asked.

    No one is going to take your opinion about engineering seriously when you have less knowledge of physics than a high schooler.


Advertisement