No, what is fact is that NIST finally conceded that for 17 floors the WTC building fell AT freefall speeds (within 3%).
What complete and utter guff B'man ... this whole thing comes about from Chandler and truther sites claiming (
falsely as it happens) that they "forced" NIST into conceding this information.
But the simple REALITY is that NIST had ALREADY put that infomation out ... Chandler and truther promotors are outright LYING when they say they were the authors of that ... and because, once AGAIN, you automatically believe their claims you take it as gospel and do not check up first.
For if you
did check up B'man ... it is easy to see that NIST had
already made mention of this freefall period in
even the DRAFT version of NCSTAR 1-9 published in AUGUST 2006 inviting public comment.
Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued August 21st 2006 ... NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3 ... to be exact ...
•In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face, as seen in Figure 12-62. By 1.75 s, the North face had descended approximately 7 ft.
•In Stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75 s and t=4.0 s.
•In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the Northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_News_Briefing_082008.pdf
Chandler brought up this point
during the PRESS CONFERENCE which was AFTER publication of the DRAFT, a draft report which took years to collate, so this information was ALREADY at NIST's hand and being looked
into ... yet Chandler first spoke of it on August 28th during the press conference ... a full SEVEN DAYS later !!!
Have you ever realized that Chandler was ONLY responding to information ALREADY out there ... and that he is outright lying when he says he
forced them to admit it ... it is shown in his OWN words when he made reference to the draft itself !!!
But please,
do feel free B'man to show how it is possible to "conceed" information already in existance ... show exactly how Chandler forced them to conceed information already published to the public ???
They did not concede the implications of that fact, which was EITHER, their models were WRONG, or the laws of physics somehow changed.
What implications B'man ... now I know that you run away from such specifics all the time ... use science B'man for this is ABOUT science and, as such, waffling esoteric about stuff does
not answer specifics ... science deals with facts and calculations ... so
show them.
You've got your great "expert" high school teacher, the erstwhile Chandler, whom should have made it easy for you ... so how about explaining EXACTLY what implications there supposedly were and how YOU take from that the NIST models are wrong or that laws changed.
Do you just automatically believe "because" it is truther claims or have you genuinely examined them in detail and with at least a little understanding of the science involved ...
Somehow I suspect the former !!!
For Chandler ... yes !!!
Does it not strike you that this man (in common with all twoofies) has such compelling and damning "evidence" and yet does NOTHING with it except whine on the internet ???
Surely such important information SHOULD be presented firstly to legitimate scientific scrutiny first ... outside the US to guarantee impartiality would be a good first step ... so WHY has he NOT done than ???
Surely such important information SHOULD be used in lawsuits and such like instead of endlessly just paraded across multiple YooToob accounts doing nothing real but massaging the self-congratulatory egos of truthers ???
This is something else you entirely dodge B'man the WHYS of how your movement is doing NOTHING about all its information and "evidence" ... YooToob, blogs and forums ... how exactly is
that progressing what you ultimately want, which is Bush & Co's heads on plates ???
What does endless internet bleating actually
achieve at the end of the day ... even just personally B'man you have spent years passionately arguing this here and what have
you achieved ... has ANYBODY
ever been persuaded by your arguments ... are you
(personally and as a movement) ANY closer to what you want ???
The answer is NO !!!
So do you still not think that as a movement it would serve you
better to get more real than internet whining ... it hasn't actually got you very far after all ... so would appealing to more authorative people not be a better strategy ... would actually,
instead of you whining here, would it not serve your cause more to contact them and try to get a more professional, more co-ordinated impetus going ... would you not be doing something
more real and worthy by contacting the various disparate little groups and getting them organized to get REAL scientific backing for all their sciency claims ???
If this is such an important cause
for you why are you wasting time and effort trying to convince people you never will be able to ... ever ... of the veracity of your claims ???
Where ???
Please point out these "lie"s then ... pages and paragraphs ... should be a dawdle since your so adamant ... show these lies or admit you are regurgitating without double-checking what conspiracy sites tell you ???
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol2_for_public_comment.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
Have you
actually read the report proper B'man ... or just the FAQ's bits ???
Give it a read ... show the moral and intellectual courage to actually FULLY read what you so readily call as wrong ... it's well sourced and referenced, has a thorough table of contents and a logical flow to its organization.
It'll take you about a week ... it's worth it, and even has a logical explanation of WHY that freefall period occured !!!
AE911Truth.INFO : Freefall Speed
So, there's NO official explanation except what was pushed in the media, and what fills the debunker websites.
What official explanation ... just how would you catagorize a 10,000 document full of calculations and mathematics if not as a piece of research ...
How do you find it so easy to dismiss such a huge investigative report done by over 200 PhD's from across many disciplines ... from far and wide and private and federal companies ... instead
preferring amateurs such as Chandler and Gage ???
Is it just because NIST's report is too difficult so rather than try fully understand it, it is
easier to dismiss ???
Personal ignorance is no grounds for dismisal of information that you clearly cannot make head or tail of ... perhaps B'man the fault lies with yourself for letting personal ignorance deny reality as it preserves ego ???
That alone justifies a new investigation.
Please explain how you falling for false information and errant claims of truthers is a justification for a new investigation ???
