September 11, 2001 (long read)

I dont believe any of this ,yet why cant any pics of plane hitting pentagon be made public?This does bother me a bit.......If there is,i have not seen them,my bad!!!

** Can't argue with ya there either, GREAT WORK. **

****You should be arguing with me in this one.  3,000 people didn't die for you, 2 of the planes didn't crash that day in your theory.****

4.  The buildings didn't fall at free fall speed (I don't care what the fuck you say smdio, you have already discredited yourself.)

** You don't care what I say?  Then why are you debating?  You're simply afraid of the truth, just like most others.  I showed you a report from NIST that agrees to Free Fall speed.  Did they "discredit themselves" too? **

**** NIST didn't admit to anything.  Post where they said that the building fell at free fall speed.  Not some stupid David Chandler Theory on there calculations proved the free fall theory with out them admitting to it.  Please Post there actual admission of Free Fall.  I would like to see the words FREE FALL in it.****

5.  Remains of the deceased were found and identified from both the Pentagon and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

** And you believe them?  I don't.  If I told you I was 9'11'', would you believe me?  No, you'd want proof, right?  Is a list of bodies on a sheet of paper enough proof for you?  Because -that- is what the government released to satisfy the "identifying" of bodies on 9/11 **

****Again pure speculation.  This is called "I don't trust the government and I have no actual proof so I'm just going to say that the government controlled it*****

6. Parts from both Flight 93 and Flight 77 were found at the scene and can be clearly seen in pictures from the pentagon and Flight 93 crash site.

** You're just naive.  Plain and simple. **

**** Good answer when you have nothing else to say.  You should of went with your "government planted that there" theme, it works good for an overall answer when you can't say anything else.  It's a good way out.****

7.  David Chandler is a High School physics teacher and was wrong in his analysis.  Remember this guy is no Professor and he is no respected physicist.  They quote this guy because he is the only one supporting there view and his video is deceptive enough to make their version of what happened sound good.  Here is a video debunking this high school teacher.  I'll let the video speak for itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA
smdio and his buddy David Chandler like to show you a video well after the collapse actually started to occur.
The building itself went down well after the events of 9/11 took place and was barely noticed by anyone until conspiracy theorists brought it up.  No one died in it and there was absolutely no reason to bring it down.

** Oh, Let's use Pseudoscience to disprove a logical claim by Chandler!  Using Pseucoscience, I can actually claim that Mars will be colliding with Earth in the next 7 days.  Would you believe me?  Anything debunking Chandler is ridiculous.  The only video's I've ever seen trying to do so are using false calculations and input to try and DEBUNK his claims, NOT to prove the truth.  If you cared enough to open your eyes, you would see that.  But your comfortable living in your world of lies.  Fine with me. **

****Let me see here David Chandler uses a video to do his calculations, and starts his calculations at point after the building already started to fall, yeah thats some good scientific facts right there. ****

Out of all that rubbish that you posted and made so friggin big that you probably turned almost -everyone- away from this thread by acting like a 15 year old (again), I did pull this statement out.

In the NIST report, which you obviously have not read, they clearly state that just over 2.5 seconds of WTC7 fell in freefall speed.  They furthermore claim that the towers fell in just under 5 seconds, although this claim is widely debated by many people who are NOT conspiracy theorists.

You can see the page of NIST's report that talks about freefall here:

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2008/12/415719.html

They even use the word freefall for you, Reilly!

Oh and I'll also offer you an apology for incorrectly identifying you as the "idiot" and not tpjw on page 25.

But I'll now retract that apology since you ranted on the very same page. I'll also remind you that you've given not a single, solid arguement to this debate, and that is why you're acting like a 16 year old punk who just got dumped by his girlfriend.

Either take your "smart" pills, or leave this debate entirely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dgJTR6ZR24

Enough said about WTC7, you all must absolutely admit that it fell for over 100 meters and over 2.5 seconds at freefall speed. 

NIST said it.  Video shows it. 

My question then becomes:

If WTC7 feel at freefall speed, how is it physically possible that the official explanation to the collapse was fire?

And if that was a lie, what else are they lying to us about?

In that video in post #634, I want to point out that an "elevator modernization" had occured at WTC7 approximately 9 months before 9/11/2001. You can read about ACE's entire project here:

https://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

Was it ACE that planted the Nano-Thermite that was found at WTC7 amongst the debris?  Well, if it was, someone on the "inside" must have let them into the building with it.  I would suggest an investigation be done on the Security Company that handled anything WTC related, which was Stratesec. So lets do that:

https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Interesting that Stratesec not only provided security for the WTC complex, but also for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines.

Are you telling me that this doesn't REEK of a coverup guys?!?!?!!?  SERIOUSLY?!?!

There is no difference between the terms "freefall" and "gravitational acceleration"

And I don't have to look at any more video of WTC7 falling.  NIST claims it fell in 5.2 seconds, and 2.25 seconds of freefall were experienced. The only time that freefall stopped was when the building started collapsing on top of itself.

Are you now saying NIST is being deceptive?!?!  That's what I've been saying all along.

If I apologize to the Burlingame's, will you stop saying that?  It's incredibly annoying.

And no, NIST referred to a "portion of the fall" was in freefall speed

And don't try to argue semantics with me.  NIST said the building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed i.e. gravitational acceleration i.e. freefall acceleration.  They are saying that there was no resistance in the buildings collapse for 2.5 seconds.  That is impossible without the aid of explosive and/or thermite.

Oh, did I mention that billions of particals of thermite were found in the debris of 9/11?

That's in Stage 2, which is only part of the collapse.

You can't even read properly?