ANZACs and war and stuff

**Katman** · 28th May 2013, 13:57

Originally Posted by Edbear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_T...iracy_theories
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/ny...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunki...p_to_the_Facts

We could swap links all day Ed but I'm more interested in your answer to the question - is it bollocks that Building 7 fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?

**Edbear** · 28th May 2013, 14:08

Originally Posted by Katman

We could swap links all day Ed but I'm more interested in your answer to the question - is it bollocks that Building 7 fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?

So show me where NIST "tried to hide" anything.

The fact is that there were no explosives used, but you just cannot seem to get your head around that. And you expoect people to take you seriously?

**Katman** · 28th May 2013, 14:13

Originally Posted by Edbear

So show me where NIST "tried to hide" anything.

Almost seven years after the collapse of Building 7 NIST released a draft report in which they used a blatantly flawed method to determine the buildings rate of fall.

They concluded that it fell at 40% slower than the speed of freefall.

After being given a lesson in Applied Physics and Mathematics by a high school physics teacher they conceded that the building did actually fall at almost exactly freefall speed.

Are NIST just not very good at their job?

**imdying** · 28th May 2013, 14:15

Originally Posted by Edbear

Like you, imdying, he restricts it mainly to vitriolic red rep.

Twisting the truth again there Ed... my public vitriol is there for all to see... ask the moderators... I expect I still have my own thread in their section

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it

**Drew** · 28th May 2013, 14:16

Originally Posted by Katman

Are NIST just not very good at their job?

More plausible than anything you've presented so far I'm afraid.

**Drew** · 28th May 2013, 14:19

Originally Posted by imdying

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it

(Sarcasm font/)Oh yeah, that'll learn him alright.(/end)

**Katman** · 28th May 2013, 14:19

Originally Posted by Drew

More plausible than anything you've presented so far I'm afraid.

So if they're not very good at their job why would anyone accept their theory that the failure of one single supporting column could bring a building down uniformly at freefall speed?

**Drew** · 28th May 2013, 14:21

Originally Posted by Katman

So if they're not very good at their job why would anyone accept their theory that the failure of one single supporting column could bring a building down uniformly at freefall speed?

If they're not very good at their job, the "one single column" bit is moot too.

**imdying** · 28th May 2013, 14:21

Originally Posted by Drew

(Sarcasm font/)Oh yeah, that'll learn him alright.(/end)

Who cares if it does?

**Drew** · 28th May 2013, 14:22

Originally Posted by imdying

Who cares if it does?

"...you're a fuckwit who deserves it

"

Erm, it would appear that you do.

**Edbear** · 28th May 2013, 14:24

Originally Posted by Katman

Almost seven years after the collapse of Building 7 NIST released a draft report in which they used a blatantly flawed method to determine the buildings rate of fall.

They concluded that it fell at 40% slower than the speed of freefall.

After being given a lesson in Applied Physics and Mathematics by a high school physics teacher they conceded that the building did actually fall at almost exactly freefall speed.

Are NIST just not very good at their job?

Link to the report?

Originally Posted by imdying

Twisting the truth again there Ed... my public vitriol is there for all to see... ask the moderators... I expect I still have my own thread in their section

Yes you get a lot of red from me; that's quite simple, you're a fuckwit who deserves it

As with the others you have always been consistent in your failure to provide any facts or verifiable evidence for your posts criticising me. Like the other couple of members I could name you doggedly ignore anything you can't refute and prefer to attack me personally.

I couldn't care less what you think of me personally and if you think your childish red rep bothers me you are deluded in the extreme.

What you and the others like you fail to understand, (mind you, you would need an IQ that registers in the positive to get this), is that your silliness only discredits you.

**Katman** · 28th May 2013, 14:30

Originally Posted by Drew

If they're not very good at their job, the "one single column" bit is moot too.

Yes, that's sort of what I'm implying Drew.

Supposedly they have proven their theory using some sort of scale model but interestingly they refuse to release that model for any sort of peer review.

**Katman** · 28th May 2013, 14:31

Originally Posted by Edbear

Link to the report?

Are you serious Ed?

Here you go...www.google.com

**Drew** · 28th May 2013, 14:39

Originally Posted by Katman

Yes, that's sort of what I'm implying Drew.

Supposedly they have proven their theory using some sort of scale model but interestingly they refuse to release that model for any sort of peer review.

Intersting site. The simulations are quite interesting too.

http://wtcdata.nist.gov/