King Mob wrote: » But I quoted the NIST's statement. They say that stage two was at freefall, which means no resistance. Also, I don't think you understand what the word negligible means. Also now on top of agreeing with the NIST, you are posting "metabunk nonsense".
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Resistance in stage 3 is the finish the wreckage pile.
Deleted User wrote: » I pop back in here every now and then to check in on this madness. The fact you are still clinging to the 'freefall' nonsense is farcical. Ironically, since the last time I checked in, you have now changed your stance from "freefall means zero resistance" to "of course it met with resistance at the bottom". I've no idea why people entertain your madness, possibly to stop you from claiming victory, but it's great entertainment all the same. See you in 2 months, folks.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » What negigible resistance?
negligible /ˈnɛɡlɪdʒɪb(ə)l/ adjective so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant. "he said that the risks were negligible"
King Mob wrote: » And you also said that the building experienced resistance at the beginning of the collapse before then experiencing free fall. Which is exactly what the NIST said happened. You previously said that the building experienced no resistance and fell all the way at free fall speed. You are totally confused and lost in your own theory.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » NIST said free fall at stage 2.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » In their explantation, the claim negligible support, that not the same as saying zero resistance. They also don't explain what they mean by negligible support)
King Mob wrote: » You're contradicting yourself again. They said free fall, which means no resistance. You are now saying that they did said free fall and no resistance. They can't say "free fall AND resistance" as that's self contradictory. Again: It's a very common word.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Where the freefall in this NIST model? What the time in this video?
King Mob wrote: » In stage two. After the collapse began, but before the facade collapsed completely. Which is in line with your new current explanation. Why do you now suddenly agree with the NIST's sequence of collapse? Why did you previously say it was incorrect? Do you now reject Hulsey's explanation as he contradicts your claims about freefall?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » How?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You claim to understand physics, but clearly you lack commonsense,
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » If a building crushing, the pressure would break windows and push dust through windows.
King Mob wrote: » Also, lol.:rolleyes:
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You think 47 floors collapsing before full collapse, will have no effect on the outside of the building?
King Mob wrote: » No. I've never claimed that. You are misrepresenting my position again. I take it that you do now reject Hulsey's report since you now disagree with him about free fall. So why did you suddenly change your mind?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » This was all happening inside the building before collapse according to NIST.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Yet on video, no windows broke or dust escaped.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » If you believe NIST, you agree with them no windows will break or dust will escape.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You also agree with them the roof caved in at the top and corners of the building crushed inwards.
King Mob wrote: » This is another misrepresentation caused by your lack of understanding and dishonesty. This is not true. You previously have claimed that broken windows and escaping dust were proof of explosives. This is another misrepresentation due to ignorance and dishonesty. The NIST claimed no such thing. Again, dishonest misrepresentation.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Wrong, i said the controlled demolition occurred at the bottom..We can't see the lower half of the building on video. NIST story is 47 floors collapsed first and then building starting come down The video evidence from CBS shows no smashed windows and dust escaped, before onset of collapse? NIST would be misleading again, if stated windows broke and dust was seen escaping through breakages in the wall/windows.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You never noticed this because you don't watch videos of what truly happened on 9./11.
King Mob wrote: » I'm sorry, this passage is too poorly written and I cannot decipher it. I've seen lots of footage from 9/11.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » The broken windows on the eastside corner occurred when a structure on the roof fell through the roof. There is no broken windows across the entire width of the building caused by 47 collapsing floors.
Dohnjoe wrote: » So this thermite you keep going on about, does it explode or does it burn? How much was used in WTC 1?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » This is one of micro sized chips burned at 430c. [/YOUTUBE]
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » :eek: 47 floors collapsed from top to bottom Do you believe this would have a zero effect on the outside facade? Answer the question and stop trying to deflect.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
