ANZACs and war and stuff

**Katman** · 26th May 2013, 16:00

Originally Posted by paturoa

You're not getting it are you? Drongo's vid from the corner takes less than 5.4 seconds. Fine agree, that is what that part of the buidling took. I'm not, and I've seen no-one else arguing the contuary.

No, you're not getting it.

The whole point of the mathematics is to confirm the fact that the building fell at freefall.

NIST fudged their figures to try hiding that fact.

As I've said, a building pancaking one floor at a time would not fall at freefall speed.

**paturoa** · 26th May 2013, 16:15

Originally Posted by Katman

The point is that the videos show conclusively that the building fell at almost exactly freefall.

I can't be botherred going back to look, so if you want to, can you please have a look and tell me who is arguing that it didn't?

Originally Posted by Katman

A building pancaking one floor at a time would not have fallen that fast.

Yeah that is correct, it wouldn't. No one is arguing that point either, though several ginger beers were initially surprised until they worked it out. I'm guessing your point here is that that is unusual, ergo a conspiracy.

The most plausible explanation so far that stands up to multiple peer reviews, is that the centre of the building collapsed first. This is supported by the evidence of the east penthouse collapsing several seconds before the outer shell and other evidence like the windows blowing out. No-one disputes that evidence.

This inner collapse maintained a number of connections to the outer shell and pulled it down as the load of the collapse came on. This force pulling down on the outer shell caused it to fall faster than a pancake scenario. There is multiple supporting evidence, and no contraditory, to this model. A key one being the remaining rubble pile shape.

**paturoa** · 26th May 2013, 16:23

Originally Posted by Katman

No, you're not getting it.

The whole point of the mathematics is to confirm the fact that the building fell at freefall.

NIST fudged their figures to try hiding that fact.

As I've said, a building pancaking one floor at a time would not fall at freefall speed.

Yes, I agree that part of the building fell at g for part of the collapse. Everyone agrees, drongo (aka Chandler was one that pointed it out), NIST agrees, I agree, you agree. So you're right Im not getting it, in particular, what are you actually arguing?

Some retard in NIST wrote some thing that was clearly wrong in the draft report which, when was pointed out was corrected.

I agree that a pancaking building logically would not fall at g. But this buidling did, so it wasn't a pancake fail scenario. See my other post.

**Katman** · 26th May 2013, 16:29

Originally Posted by paturoa

This inner collapse maintained a number of connections to the outer shell and pulled it down as the load of the collapse came on. This force pulling down on the outer shell caused it to fall faster than a pancake scenario. There is multiple supporting evidence, and no contraditory, to this model. A key one being the remaining rubble pile shape.

The official story is pointing towards the failure of one or two columns on the east side of the building.

I certainly don't believe that a localised failure on that side of the building would cause the other side of the building to fall at freefall speed.

Furthermore, the west side of the building fell straight down - without any discernable falling in towards the centre.

**Katman** · 26th May 2013, 17:02

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...11-myths-.html

**paturoa** · 26th May 2013, 17:05

Originally Posted by Katman

The official story is pointing towards the failure of one or two columns on the east side of the building.

I certainly don't believe that a localised failure on that side of the building would cause the other side of the building to fall at freefall speed.

Furthermore, the west side of the building fell straight down - without any discernable falling in towards the centre.

The NIST report is an interesting read. Go straight to section 24 on page 21. Your questions and doubts are answered there.

**Katman** · 26th May 2013, 17:09

Originally Posted by paturoa

The NIST report is an interesting read. Go straight to section 24 on page 21. Your questions and doubts are answered there.

NIST are a government agency.

They'll say what they're told to say.

**paturoa** · 26th May 2013, 17:21

Originally Posted by Katman

NIST are a government agency.

They'll say what they're told to say.

But if you're saying that what they are saying is wrong, shouldn't you at least read what they are saying?

Is it your position that some ghost writer out there in merkin govt land told them what to write? There were quite a lot of people who worked on that report. I not heard of any whistle blowers or even mysterious deaths.

**Katman** · 26th May 2013, 17:41

Originally Posted by paturoa

But if you're saying that what they are saying is wrong, shouldn't you at least read what they are saying?

Is it your position that some ghost writer out there in merkin govt land told them what to write? There were quite a lot of people who worked on that report. I not heard of any whistle blowers or even mysterious deaths.

Any agency that puts a bumbling nervous wreck in a position of acting as their 'specialist' is very hard to take seriously.