For Some Reason, I Don't Remember Seeing These Pictures in the NIST Report
The NIST reports on the WTC can be seen here.
Seriously-- if NIST is going to study the WTC collapses, shouldn't they look at, like, the collapses?
And even more seriously-- does anyone SERIOUSLY THINK that a gravitational collapse would peel the building apart like this and turn the insides into dust?
Again, what is nuttier? The official story-- or the idea that unconventional devices were used to bring down the buildings??????????????
posted by spooked at 8:42 AM
2 Comments:
"collapse ensued"
911commission stated that wtc2 *collapsed in only 10 seconds. NIST stated that wtc2 *collapsed at near free-fall speed. since free-fall speed in a vacuum for an object falling from a wtc height is just over 9 seconds, the 10 seconds not in a vacuum that wtc2 took to *collapse (an astounding rate of 11 floors per second - magic!) should be considered very very rapid indeed.
as far as i know there is no official rate of *collapse listed for wtc1 because observation of this phenomenon was somewhat obscured by the incredible amount of powdered concrete that was still suspended in the air from the *collapse of wtc2 but i have come to the personal conclusion that the *collapse of wtc1 took between 11 and 14 seconds.
* an explosion is not a collapse.
Do as you're told, write what you're told... and get paid!
Don't... and get fired!
Post a Comment
<< Home